JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for the grant of the following amongst other reliefs:- 1. Declare the construction carried out by respondents No. 4 and 5 in their house i.e. House No. 201, situated in Ward No. 10, Thanera Mohalla, Mandi town, referred to in the petition without any construction permission in their favour in this regard either from respondent No.2 or respondent No.3 as illegal and unauthorized and direct respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to demolish the said illegal construction raised by respondents No. 4 and 5 forthwith; 2. Direct respondents No. 4 and 5 not to carry out any further construction in House No. 201, situated in Ward No.10, Thanera Mohalla, Mandi town, in the absence of any construction permission in this regard in their favour from the competent authorities with further direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 to see to it that respondents No. 4 and 5 do not indulge in any further illegal construction. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondents No. 4 is owner of house No. 201 Ward No. 10, Thanera Mohalla, Mandi town, Tehsil Sadar, Mandi. Respondent No.5 is her son. In fact, the petitioner is the brother of respondent No. 4. The petitioner alleged that respondents No. 4 and 5 raised illegal and unauthorized construction by adding one additional storey by way of construction of a room to the aforesaid mentioned house. On 17.12.2007 the petitioner reported the matter to the Municipal Council, Mandi and the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Mandi issued notice on 18.12.2007 to the respondent No. 4 under Section 211 of the H.P. Municipal Act (here-in-after referred to as the Act). Respondent No. 4 was informed that she had started construction without obtaining any permission as required under Section 203 (1) of the Act and therefore, she was directed to stop construction work. It is not disputed that this notice was served upon respondent No.4. However, according to the petitioner, the respondents did not stop construction despite receipt of notice. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the police on 20.12.2007 and informed the police that the construction was going on. The police authorities came to the conclusion that there was no danger of breach of peace and advised the petitioner to approach a Court. However, according to the petitioner, the respondents did not stop construction despite receipt of notice. Thereafter, he reported the matter to the police on 20.12.2007 and informed the police that the construction was going on. The police authorities came to the conclusion that there was no danger of breach of peace and advised the petitioner to approach a Court. Thereafter the matter was again reported to the Municipal Council and the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council sent a letter to the City Inchage, City Police Chowki - Mandi on 21.12.2007 informing him that the respondent No. 4 is continuing to raise construction despite the earlier order issued. It is alleged that the respondents despite this did not stop construction and thereafter the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. The present petition was taken up on 11.1.2008 and further construction activity was directed to be stopped. Respondents have filed reply. The stand of the respondent No. 3 is that the respondents No. 4 and 5 stopped the further construction on 31.12.2007. The stand of the Municipal Council is that when the matter with regard to the unauthorized construction carried out by respondent No. 4 was brought to its knowledge, it took action by issuing notice under the Act. The stand of respondent No. 4 is that the original structure was constructed prior to the Municipal Act being made applicable to the town of Mandi and that she has not raised any new construction but has only renovated the old construction. In the alternative, it is submitted that the matter may be remitted to the Municipal Authorities to consider the matter for compounding. 5. We have gone through the documents placed on record in detail. It is apparent from the photographs that originally there was no room standing on the top of the house in question. There appear to be some parapet or wall which is generally there on the top of the houses. Over this a brick wall and lintel have been laid. The photographs attached with the petition as well as the reply filed by the Committee are clearly indicative of the fact that fresh construction has been raised. The stand of respondents No. 4 and 5 that there was a room in existence which has only been renovated, is absolutely false. Over this a brick wall and lintel have been laid. The photographs attached with the petition as well as the reply filed by the Committee are clearly indicative of the fact that fresh construction has been raised. The stand of respondents No. 4 and 5 that there was a room in existence which has only been renovated, is absolutely false. According to these respondents, there was a store on the top floor which has been renovated by laying a lintel and brick wall. This is contrary to the material on record. The respondents have failed to place on record any material whatsoever to show that there was store existing at the place of occurrence. Section 203 of the Municipal Act reads as follows :- (1) No person shall erect or re-erect or commence to erect or re-erect any building without the sanction of the municipality. (2) Every person who intends to erect or re-erect any building shall give notice in writing to the municipality of such intention. (3) The municipality shall by bye-law- (a) prescribe the manner in which notice of the intention to erect or re-erect a building shall be given to the municipality; (b) require that with every such notice shall be furnished a site plan of the land on which it is intended to erect or re-erect such building and a plan and specification of the building, of such character and with such details as the bye-law may require: Provided that every such plan and specifications shall be duly signed by a qualified structural engineer who shall be registered with the municipality for the purpose; Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause the expression "a qualified Structural Engineer" means a graduate (civil) engineer; and (c) Where the building appears likely to be used as a factory, required the provision of adequate housing accommodation in connection therewith : Provided that the State Government may of its own or on a representation from any municipality alter, vary or modify the bye-laws so as to suit the particular needs of the municipality. (4) Where bye-laws have been framed under this section, no notice under sub-section (2) shall be considered to be valid until the information, if any, required by such bye-laws has been furnished to the satisfaction of the municipality." 6. (4) Where bye-laws have been framed under this section, no notice under sub-section (2) shall be considered to be valid until the information, if any, required by such bye-laws has been furnished to the satisfaction of the municipality." 6. It is apparent that even in case of re-erection of any building, sanction of the municipality has to be taken and unless the plan submitted by such person is sanctioned this person has no right to erect or re-erect the building. Therefore, even if, for the sake of argument it is accepted that there was a store already in existence when the respondent No.4 wanted to re-erect the store by constructing brick wall and laying a concrete slap, it was incumbent upon her to have sought permission under the H.P. Municipal Act. 7. Since this permission has not been sought, the construction raised by the respondent No.4 is wholly illegal. The respondent No.4 raised the construction even before she submitted the plan. It has now been submitted before us that the respondent No.4 has submitted a revised plan. We are unable to understand how a revised plan can be submitted. A revised plan can only be submitted in a case where there is already in existence some sanctioned plan and some deviation from the sanctioned plan has taken place necessitating the submissions of a revised plan. 7A. Section 211 of the Act provides that where a building is erected or re-erected without sanction, the Municipal Committee can require the building to be altered or demolished. Section 211 (2) of the Act reads as follows:- "Where the owner of the building submits the revised plan, after the work has been stopped by him or the work is completed by him and deviation from the sanctioned plan are minor in nature the municipality may, subject to the special or general directions of the State Government under sub-section (3), compound the cases of deviation. Explanation.- For the purpose of this sub-section the expression "minor", shall not include- (a) addition of a storey beyond the sanctioned plan; (b) erection of a building- (i) on any Government land or the land vested in municipality or a local authority; (ii) by covering any public road, street, path or drain." A perusal of this Section clearly shows that when the owner of the building submits the revised plan after the work has been stopped by him and the deviation is minor in nature, the municipality may subject to general directions of the State Government compound the case for deviation. The explanation clearly points out that an addition of a storey beyond the sanctioned plan will not fall within the expression minor. In the present case, as held by us above, there was no sanctioned plan, before erecting the room. The respondent No.4 did not deem it even necessary to seek the sanction of the Municipal Committee. Even after the Municipal Committee issued notice to the respondent No.4 to stop construction, she did not do so. Construction was stopped only after the matter was reported to the police. Such a person does not deserve any sympathy from the courts. In the present case, the plea of the respondents that the Municipal Committee be permitted to examine her case cannot be acceded to. It is apparent that she desires that Municipal Committee should compound her offence. This is an offence which cannot be compounded in terms of Section 211 (2) of the Act. Even the State Government cannot give any directions which are contrary to the provisions of the Act. If the rule of law is to prevail in this country no person can be allowed to flout the law with impunity and then be permitted to compound his matter. No executive instructions can be issued which are contrary to law. 8. The Apex Court in Friends Colony Development Committee v. State Of Orissa And Others, (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 733, had observed as follows:- "22. In all developed and developing countries there is emphasis on planned development of cities which is sought to be achieved by zoning, planning and regulating building construction activity. Such planning, though highly complex, is a matter based on scientific research, study and experience leading to rationalisation of laws by way of legislative enactments and rules and regulations framed thereunder. In all developed and developing countries there is emphasis on planned development of cities which is sought to be achieved by zoning, planning and regulating building construction activity. Such planning, though highly complex, is a matter based on scientific research, study and experience leading to rationalisation of laws by way of legislative enactments and rules and regulations framed thereunder. Zoning and planning do result in hardship to individual property owners as their freedom to use their property in the way they like, is subjected to regulation and control. The private owners are to some extent prevented from making the most profitable use of their property. But for this reason alone the controlling regulations cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. The private interest stands subordinated to the public good. It can be stated in a way that power to plan development of city and to regulate the building activity therein flows from the police power of the State. The exercise of such governmental power is justified on account of it being reasonably necessary for the public health, safety, morals or general welfare and ecological considerations; though an unnecessary or unreasonable intermeddling with the private ownership of the property may not be justified. 23. The municipal laws regulating the building construction activity may provide for regulations as to floor area, the number of floors, the extent of height rise and the nature of use to which a built-up property may be subjected in any particular area. The individuals as property owners have to pay some price for securing peace, good order, dignity, protection and comfort and safety of the community. Not only filth, stench and unhealthy places have to be eliminated, but the layout helps in achieving family values, youth values, seclusion and clean air to make the locality a better place to live. Building regulations also help in reduction or elimination of fire hazards, the avoidance of traffic dangers and the lessening of prevention of traffic congestion in the streets and roads. Zoning and building regulations are also legitimised from the point of view of the control of community development, the prevention of overcrowding of land, the furnishing of recreational facilities like parks and playgrounds and the availability of adequate water, sewerage and other governmental or utility services. 24. Zoning and building regulations are also legitimised from the point of view of the control of community development, the prevention of overcrowding of land, the furnishing of recreational facilities like parks and playgrounds and the availability of adequate water, sewerage and other governmental or utility services. 24. Structural and lot area regulations authorise the municipal authorities to regulate and restrict the height, number of storeys and other structures; the percentage of a plot that may be occupied; the size of yards, courts and open spaces; the density of population; and the location and use of buildings and structures. All these have in our view and do achieve the larger purpose of the public health, safety or general welfare. So are front setback provisions, average alignments and structural alterations. Any violation of zoning and regulation laws takes the toll in terms of public welfare and convenience being sacrificed apart from the risk, inconvenience and hardship which is posed to the occupants of the building. (For a detailed discussion reference may be had to the chapter on "Zoning and Planning" in American Jurisprudence, 2d, Vol. 82.) 25. Though the municipal laws permit deviations from sanctioned constructions being regularised by compounding but that is by way of exception. Unfortunately, the exception, with the lapse of time and frequent exercise of the discretionary power conferred by such exception, has become the rule. Only such deviations deserve to be condoned as are bonafide or are attributable to some misunderstanding or are such deviations as where the benefit gained by demolition would be far less than the disadvantage suffered. Other than these, deliberate deviations do not deserve to be condoned and compounded. Compounding of deviations ought to be kept at a bare minimum. The cases of professional builders stand on a different footing from an individual constructing his own building. A professional builder is supposed to understand the laws better and deviations by such builders can safely be assumed to be deliberate and done with the intention of earning profits and hence deserve to be dealt with sternly so as to act as a deterrent for future. It is common knowledge that the builders enter into underhand dealings. A professional builder is supposed to understand the laws better and deviations by such builders can safely be assumed to be deliberate and done with the intention of earning profits and hence deserve to be dealt with sternly so as to act as a deterrent for future. It is common knowledge that the builders enter into underhand dealings. Be that as it may, the State Governments should think of levying heavy penalties on such builders and therefrom develop a welfare fund which can be utilised for compensating and rehabilitating such innocent or unwary buyers who are displaced on account of demolition of illegal constructions. 26. The application for compounding the deviations made by the builders should always be dealt with at a higher level by a multimember High Powered Committee so that the builders cannot manipulate. The officials who have connived at unauthorised or illegal constructions should not be spared. In developing cities the strength of staff which is supposed to keep a watch on building activities should be suitably increased in the interest of constant and vigilant watch on illegal or unauthorised constructions." After making the aforesaid observations, the Apex Court set-aside the order of the High Court directing the reconsidering of the application of the revised building plan as is being prayed for by the respondent No.4 in the present case and further directed the High Court that if it feels that illegal, unauthorized activities are rampant in Cuttack, it may suo motu initiate a public interest litigation and commence monitoring the same by issuing necessary directions. 9. In the present case, the illegality of the construction is writ large. No purpose would be served by sending the case for decision by the Municipal Committee, which is apparently dragging its feet in the matter for one reason or the other. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and hold that the construction raised by the respondent is totally illegal and does not amount to deviation within the meaning of Section 211 of the H.P. Municipality Act. The respondent No.4 is given six weeks time to demolish the construction of her own. In case, she does not do so, the Municipal Committee, Mandi, shall ensure that the said construction is demolished within two weeks thereafter. 10. The respondent No.4 is given six weeks time to demolish the construction of her own. In case, she does not do so, the Municipal Committee, Mandi, shall ensure that the said construction is demolished within two weeks thereafter. 10. Keeping in view the facts brought to our notice during the hearing of the petition, we direct the Municipal Committee, Mandi, to place before us the records of all buildings/constructions which have been raised without or in violation of the sanctioned plan. The Executive Officer of the Committee shall file his personal affidavit, giving details of all cases wherein such construction have been noticed by the Municipal Committee. The action, if any, taken and whether any demolition has been conducted pursuant to demolition orders shall also be reflected in the affidavit. This affidavit be filed within eight weeks from today. List on February 26, 2009.