Judgment :- (This W.P. Filed praying to direct to restrain the respondents from demolishing the scheduled property and Etc.) The petitioner, having purchased the schedule immoveable property from his vendor in title by name N. Geetha, who, on securing a sanction of building plan and licence to erect a residential building, nevertheless, constructed a building for commercial use, has presented this petition for a writ of mandamus, to restrain the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, for short BBMP, from demolishing the said property. 2. The construction of the commercial building on a residential plot of land without change of land use, from residential to commercial, under the Karnataka Town and country planning Act 1961, for short KTCP Act, and contrary to sanction of building plan and licence exfacie, was illegal, let alone the use of the said building for commercial activity. The complaint of the petitioner’s neighbour over the illegalities, when not responded, led to filing W.P.19029-30/01, whence, a learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 19.6.01, Annexure B, disposed off the petition, recording the submission of the Learned Counsel for the 5th respondent-vendor in title of the petitioner, that the petition is rendered infructuous since a confirmation order under Sub.Sec.(3) of Sec.321 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, for short the Act, to remove the unauthorized structure, was served on the said respondent, and, the submission of the Executive Engineer(Elec.) Addl. South Division arraigned as the 4th respondent in the said writ petition, that an action plan was initiated to demolish the unauthorized structure erected contrary to the building plan. 3. The petitioner therein aggrieved by the order preferred WA 4321-22/01 whence the Division Bench by order dated 13th September, 2001 Annexure C, recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the Corporation as well as the 5th respondent that in view of the confirmation order under sub.sec.(3) of Sec.321 of the Act the BBMP had a duty to demolish the offensive portion of the building and directed thus: “In the said view of the mater, no further order need be passed except to the extent that the Commissioner should ensure the carrying out of his order in accordance with law.” 4. It appears that the petitioner’s vendor in title undaunted by the orders, supra, instituted O.S.8454/01 along with an application under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC for an order of temporary injunction restraining the Corporation from interfering with the plaint schedule property, none other than the schedule immovable property, whence the civil court by order dated 19.4.02. Annexure D temporarily restrained the BBMP from demolishing the building in question, pending disposal of the suit. In addition the petitioner’s vendor in title, preferred an appeal against the order of confirmation under sub.sec.(3) of Sec.321 of the Act, before the Standing Committee of the BBMP and obtained an interim order of stay of demolition, which was thereafter words dissolved by the State Government in exercise of jurisdiction under Sec.98 of the Act. 5. The petitioner’s neighbour by name M. Narayana, one of the petitioners in W.P. 19029-30/2001 and appellant in W.A. 4321-22/2001, having filed an application to be impleaded as a proper and necessary party in O.S.8454/01, on its rejection by the trial court, filed CRP No.3321/2003. This court by order dt.22.1.04, while rejecting the petition observed that the order of injunction would not come in the way of demolition of the structure. 6. The vendor in title, allegedly, having put to use the building for commercial activity, the said M. Narayana, filed W.P.318/06, arraigning the petitioner as Respondent No.6, whence, a learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 19.9.08 Annexure H held thus: “4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that this court has observed in the revision petition that if the order of demolition is legal and in pursuance of the order passed by this court in the writ petition as well as the writ appeal, the order of injunction shall not come in the way in giving effect to its own order. Having regard to this fact, I am of the view that a direction is required to be issued to the Corporation to implement the order passed by this court in the revision petition. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part, respondents 1 to 4 are directed to take steps to implement the order passed by this court in CRP 3321/03, disposed of on 22.1.2004.” 7. Sri. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part, respondents 1 to 4 are directed to take steps to implement the order passed by this court in CRP 3321/03, disposed of on 22.1.2004.” 7. Sri. L. Govindaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a non-resident Indian and a gullible customer, having purchased the schedule immoveable property on some assurance of a certain agent at Bangalore, has not put to use the said immoveable property for commercial use or caused nuisance to his neighbour, According to the learned counsel, the petitioner’s application for regularization of the unauthorized construction under Akrama and Sakrama Scheme as well as the application for change of land use and modification of the plan are pending. Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner would be advised to pull down the offensive portion of the building, if granted 12 weeks time. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for BBMP submits that the only impediment in the execution of the confirmation order under sub.sec.(3) of Sec.321 of the Act, is the interim order dated 21.2.2009. According to the learned counsel, in the admitted facts the building constructed illegally, being contrary to sanction of plan and licence more so in the admitted absence of an order for change of land use from residential to commercial, in a predominantly residential zone, under Sec.14A of the KTCP Act, if the petitioner on his own pulls down the offensive portion of the building, the corporation would have no grievance. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleading, in the admitted factual matrix, it is a clear case of abuse of the process of the court calculated at hampering due course of judicial process and the orderly administration of justice, bordering around criminal contempt. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleading, in the admitted factual matrix, it is a clear case of abuse of the process of the court calculated at hampering due course of judicial process and the orderly administration of justice, bordering around criminal contempt. The petitioner and his vendor in title having suffered an order before the Division Bench of this court directing the respondent BBMP to give effect to its order under sub.sec(3) of Sec.321 of the Act, on 13th September, 2001, and the subsequent orders in CRP 3321/03 and WP318/06 Annexure H, despite passage of eight long years, are not complied with, due to the abuse of process of court, by the petitioner’s vendor in title, by instituting the suit, obtaining an order of Temporary injunction and an appeal to the Standing Committee of BBMP, thwarting the attempt of the BBMP to give effect to its order. The subject matter of the earlier writ petitions and writ appeal are substantially the very same subject matter as in the present writ petition. All efforts to stall the execution of the confirmation order on the premise that a subsequent legislation entitles the petitioner to the benefit of regularization of unauthorized construction, cannot come to the aid of the petitioner, since admittedly that legislation is stayed by a Division Bench of this court in a Public Interest Litigation. 10. The contention that the petitioner has preferred an application to modify the building plans earlier sanctioned, deserves to be rejected at the threshold. Neither the Act nor building bye laws invests a right in the petitioner to seek modification of a building plan duly sanctioned so as to legalise a building which is illegal, moreover the building byelaws for residential buildings and that of commercial buildings are not common. 11. The further contention of the learned counsel that the schedule property is not put to commercial use and has not occasioned nuisance to his neighbour is no jurisdiction to file this petitioner for the relief in the nature of injunction. In my opinion, the attempt on the part of the petitioner to stall lawful proceedings cannot but be termed as abuse of process of law. 12. In my opinion, the attempt on the part of the petitioner to stall lawful proceedings cannot but be termed as abuse of process of law. 12. In almost similar, though not identical circumstances, the Supreme Court in Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others reported in (2008) 1 SCC 560 held thus: .“16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries, this court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt”. 13. In Advocate General State of Bihar’s case reported in (1980) 3 SCC 311 , having regard to the fact that application over application was filed before the same Single Judge, only to circumvent or defeat the effect of the orders of the Division Bench of that court, it was held that every application was a daring ‘raid’ on the court and each was an abuse of the process of the court, calculated to obstruct the due course of a judicial proceedings and the administration of justice which amounted to criminal contempt of court. 14. The principles of law, noticed supra, are applicable on all their fours to the facts and circumstances of this case. 15. The petitioner a non resident Indian, having purchased the schedule property from his vendor in title suffered orders of this court to implement the order of demolition of the illegal structure, however, keeping in mind the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, ends of justice would be met by taking a lenient view, without initiating any further proceedings against the petitioner, while quantifying cost of Rs.20,000/-. The petition is without merit and is accordingly rejected. Cost of Rs.20,000/- to be made over to the account of the 1st respondent – BBMP. The respondent BBMP is directed to take action to pull down the offensive portion of the building if not forthwith, done by the petitioner, and submit an action taken report to the Registrar (General) of this court, within three months from the date of receipt of this order.