JUDGMENT K. Kannan, J. 1. The petitioner is a Municipal Committee, Garhshankar and it had established a bus stand on the property which was under the control of the Administrator, New Mandi Township at Sector 22-C, Chandigarh. The Mandi Commissioner had objection to the construction of a bus stand with several shops without securing permission from the Administrator, as required in the letter of allotment issued to the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Garhshankar on 07.11.1984. The ground for directing removal of the construction was that the Municipal Committee never got the plan prepared from the Town Planner nor got the approval from the Colonization Department. 2. The petitioner would contend that the order of demolition was clearly wrong since the Director, Colonization had no power under the Regulation of Colonization Act of 1975 to reject the site plan submitted to the authorities. Since the bus stand was established by the Municipal Committee, the Municipal Committee itself had the jurisdiction over the area and it had full power to make bye-laws for construction or re-erect of the buildings under Section 189-190 of the Punjab Municipal Act of 1911. Since the petitioner had been delivered the property in the year 1976 and the bus stand was also constructed, the conditions laid down later in the year 1984 could not be relied upon for the removal of the construction made. The respondent was bound to regularize the construction made already and such a decision had also been taken in the meting of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur. The respondents were estopped from seeking the demolition of the construction after such a decision. The shops and other buildings were themselves integral part of the bus stand and the basic amenities providing for refreshments to public cannot be denied by direction for removal. It would be grossly inequitable to allow for a public authority to put up constructions and after allowing the construction to remain for more than 12 years to direct the removal. 3. In the written statement filed by the Deputy Director, Colonization of the Mandi Board, it is stated that any construction within the Mandi Township are regulated by law, namely, New Mandi Townships (D & R) Act and Rules framed thereunder. No construction could be made within mandi area without the prior approval of the Colonization Department. 3. In the written statement filed by the Deputy Director, Colonization of the Mandi Board, it is stated that any construction within the Mandi Township are regulated by law, namely, New Mandi Townships (D & R) Act and Rules framed thereunder. No construction could be made within mandi area without the prior approval of the Colonization Department. The Municipal Committee had no power to approve for itself a construction in violation of the statutory provisions. Along with the letter of delivery of possession of the property for bus stand, there had been a specific direction that the Municipal Committee would not erect any wall in front of the site of post office and Market Committee office. No doubt, the petitioner had submitted the site plan but it was returned unapproved with a direction to submit elevation of the building etc. by the letter dated 30.09.1983. The petitioner had not returned the site plans after complying with the directions. The petitioner had again sent a site plan only along with the letter dated 06.11.1987, but there was no decision at the meeting on 01.10.1987 to regularize the construction. The petitioner was expressly reminded to remove the wall constructed in violation of the condition laid down at the time of handing over possession. The petitioner did not comply with the same. 4. It is not now denied before me that the property comes within the area regulated by the new Mandi Townships Regulation and Development Act. It is not also denied that the property had been handed over with specific conditions. The Municipal Committee could not have undertaken any construction without appropriate approvals as required under the Act. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner only pressed for the argument that it would be grossly inequitable to direct the removal of a construction which has come up and for the removals of the shops which are existing in such constructions. I would find this to be a strange argument for a public authority to make. A Municipal Committee which is a public body ought to regulate its conduct to conform to all laws. It cannot arrogate to itself powers to flout regulations expressly brought through State Legislation and executive rules. There can be no public interest outside the realm of law. Equities have to conform to how the law makes its mandate. A Municipal Committee which is a public body ought to regulate its conduct to conform to all laws. It cannot arrogate to itself powers to flout regulations expressly brought through State Legislation and executive rules. There can be no public interest outside the realm of law. Equities have to conform to how the law makes its mandate. The plea of the petitioner that the demolition would cost public interest dearly is patently untenable. The Municipal Committee ought to know that it shall be seen as the first institution setting an example for the public whose interest it seeks to protect. The Municipal Committees themselves have enormous powers to regulate public conduct. They having powers under the Public Premises Act for removal of unauthorized construction. They also are given exclusive powers for removal of constructions which are made in violation of municipal laws. It cannot breach the law itself and expect any member of the public to behave differently. The writ petition is wholly unjustified. The petitioner shall first conform. At the time of admission, the Court has allowed for action to proceed under the Public Premises Act but has directed the execution of the order to be stayed. The interim order cannot subsist any longer. The petitioner shall go; so too, its illegal construction. The writ petition is dismissed. The interim order granted already shall stand vacated. If there is any order of demolition under the Public Premises Act, it shall be carried through without any let or hindrance. Petition dismissed.