ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and all the counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipality. 2. These batch of writ applications have come to this Court on account of the fact that the petitioners who are builders of multi storied buildings have been issued notice and further been asked to stop construction of the buildings till disposal of the vigilance case instituted against these builders vide Annexures 1 and 2. Infact, at Annexure-2, a notice has been issued to the builders asking them to show-cause as to why their buildings should not be demolished. 3. Before reverting to the facts of the present case, I may point out that a Public Interest Litigation was filed vide CWJC No. 1241 of 2009, which was disposed of on 27.1.2009, wherein one Gyanwati Devi, a ward councilor had made a complaint, that in violation of the building bye-laws a multi storied building was under construction at Duzra Devi Asthan Suraksha Bandh, Patna. This Court directed that the Patna Municipal Corporation should take appropriate steps and a decision in the matter expeditiously. On the orders of this Court, the Patna Municipal Corporation vide an order issued on 18.6.2009 examined the allegations as to whether the building in question met the requirements of the Municipal Corporation.The conclusion reached by the Corporation was that the soil test report, structural design etc. were according to bye-laws of the Municipal Corporation. 4. In the present case, Sri Babu Lal Agrawal, the Deputy Secretary of the Legislative Council wrote a letter to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Patna stating therein that several buildings have cropped up on the bank of the river Ganga, which according to him were not in accordance with the building bye-laws, rules and regulations. He further expressed his concern over the fact that the construction of the multi storied buildings would lead to pollution of the river Ganges. On the basis of this letter dated 3.1.2012, the Municipal Corporation called a meeting on 25.1.2012 and passed a resolution which is contained in Annexure-9. It was decided that the Corporation should not grant or sanction any further construction of building beyond northern side of the embankment (boundary wall) of the river Ganges. It was also decided that the question of structural safety, fire fighting facilities, soil testing of the area etc. It was decided that the Corporation should not grant or sanction any further construction of building beyond northern side of the embankment (boundary wall) of the river Ganges. It was also decided that the question of structural safety, fire fighting facilities, soil testing of the area etc. should be looked into for the purposes of considering whether the builders (petitioners) had built as per the Rules and Regulations as laid down by the Municipal Corporation. Vigilance cases were instituted and petitioners came to be noticed vide Annexures 1 and 2. The petitioners have appeared in the vigilance case and filed their show-cause in all the cases. 5. This matter was heard by this Court on 6.3.2012 and this Court on the assurance of the Additional Advocate General refused to intervene by staying Annexures 1 and 2 on the undertaking that the Municipal Corporation would be passing its final orders after examining the certificates issued to the petitioners by 16.3.2012. Apparently the orders have not been passed by the Municipal Corporation. 6. Counsel for the Municipal Corporation has produced a notification before this Court from the Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 18.2.2010 by which the Central Government has directed that the State Government should constitute a committee to look, maintain and conserve the river Ganges in the States where the river Ganges flows. The idea is to protect the Ganga river from pollution. The committee apparently has not yet to be constituted. In any event, it would appear that the functions of the committee is for taking steps for effective abatement of conservation of river Ganga and for implementing the decisions of the directions of the National Ganga River Basin Authority. This notification, it goes without saying, is a good step towards maintaining and conserving the Ganga river. It is hoped that the State Level Committee will start to function shortly. It has also been contended that by permitting these multi storied buildings to be constructed, there is an apprehension that the waste will flow into the river Ganges. This can be avoided and ensured by examining whether these builders have made adequate arrangement for the waste to flow in the sewage line instead of the river. 7. It has also been contended that by permitting these multi storied buildings to be constructed, there is an apprehension that the waste will flow into the river Ganges. This can be avoided and ensured by examining whether these builders have made adequate arrangement for the waste to flow in the sewage line instead of the river. 7. Coming back to the facts of this case, it goes without saying that the Municipal Corporation will require to examine the documents of the builders with respect to the issues raised by the Municipal Corporation in their meeting dated 25.1.2010, for which purpose the Corporation must examine the document of each of the petitioners. The Municipal Corporation is at liberty to pass appropriate orders in individual cases. It would appear that there are genuine difficulties faced by the Municipal Corporation in passing orders in the vigilance case because they have to examine the case of each of the builders individually, which will be time consuming process. Each of the petitioners have annexed the documents in the writ application which are purportedly in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Corporation granted by the competent authority. 8. In the circumstances aforesaid, these batch of writ applications are disposed of with the observation that the Municipal Corporation may pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties, examining the documents etc. expeditiously. In the meantime, it would not be proper for the Municipal Corporation to pass a blanket order staying further construction, as most of the buildings, are near completion. At the time when orders of stay were issued, there was merely an apprehension expressed vide Annexures 8 and 9 infact, there was no material before the Municipal Corporation to come to the conclusion that the petitioners had violated the laws of the Municipal Corporation. 9. It goes without saying that the petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the orders passed by the Municipal Corporation, if so advised. This Court also clarifies that each of the builders should paste a notice on the buildings indicating that there is a vigilance case pending with respect to the buildings in question.