JUDGMENT 1. A dishonest builder, who raises construction without any sanction plan, cannot be treated at par with an honest builder who, in the process of raising construction with a sanction plan, makes minor deviation unintentionally. So far as the dishonest builder is concerned, no leniency should be shown to him and/or the illegal construction raised by him and in case such construction is raised by such a builder with profit earning motive and/or for commercial exploitation out of such illegal construction then the Municipal Authority should not relax the Building Rules and Regulation for regularizing such illegal construction by keeping in mind that exercise of such power of relaxation is an exception to the Rule. However, such a rigid view need not be taken to regularize minor deviation which was made bonafide in the process of raising some construction with a sanction plan. In such cases, some laxity may be shown to regularize such minor deviation by relaxing the Building Rules or Regulations provided such construction is structurally stable and does not affect the ventilation i.e. right to air and light of the neighbouring owners and/or occupiers of the adjoining premises and safety of public life and property is not endangered by retention of such construction. 2 .Keeping in mind the aforesaid basic principle of law, let me now consider the merit of this writ petition in the facts of the instant case. 3. Here is a case where this Court finds that after obtaining a building sanction plan for raising a two-storied building at premises No. 234, Baghajyotin Place, the petitioner herein not only added one additional storey but also raised unauthorized construction right from the ground floor upto the third floor by covering the mandatory open space and thereby extending the construction by covering floor area more than the permissible floor area ratio. Thus, a demolition proceeding was initiated against him in respect of such illegal and/or unauthorized construction which was raised by the petitioner without any sanction plan. The Special Officer (Building) found that the petitioner intentionally violated various provisions of the Building Rules such as, Rule 51, Rule 56, Rule 57, Rule 61 and Rule 68 in constructing such unauthorized construction. It was found by the Special Officer (Building) that he consumed more floor area ratio than the permissible limit. The Special Officer (Building) found that the petitioner intentionally violated various provisions of the Building Rules such as, Rule 51, Rule 56, Rule 57, Rule 61 and Rule 68 in constructing such unauthorized construction. It was found by the Special Officer (Building) that he consumed more floor area ratio than the permissible limit. It was found that consumed floor area ratio is 2.36 which exceeds the permissible ratio i.e. 1.75. Thus, the Special Officer (Building) was of view that certain part of such unauthorized construction should be demolished to reduce the consumed floor area to some extent. Thus, the petitioner was directed to demolish the unauthorized construction of the varanda and one bed room constructed in front of North-East corner at third floor level and regularized the remaining part of such unauthorized construction on realization of penalty from the petitioner. The Special Officer (Building) regularized such unauthorized construction as demolition of such unauthorized construction may cause the structural strength of the entire building unsafe and unstable. 4. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of the Special Officer by which the petitioner was directed to demolish the said varanda and one room on the third floor, he preferred an appeal before the Municipal Building Tribunal. The said appeal was dismissed on contest and the order of demolition passed by the Special Officer (Building) was affirmed in the said appeal. 5. The legality and propriety of the said order of the Appellate Tribunal is under challenge in the writ petition at the instance of such person who is responsible for such unauthorized construction. Before entering into the merit of the instant writ petition it is worth to mention here that the petitioner admitted in the proceeding before this Special Officer (Building), the Appellate Authority and even before this Court that such unauthorized construction was raised by him to make the project commercially viable. Considering such admission of the petitioner, both the Special Officer (Building) and the Appellate Tribunal held that there was no bonafide on the part of the petitioner in raising such unauthorized construction and as such, the unauthorized construction cannot be regularized by relaxing the Building Rules. The Appellate Tribunal, while deciding the said appeal, also found that more than 80 per cent and/or about 90 per cent of such unauthorized construction was regularized. The Appellate Tribunal, while deciding the said appeal, also found that more than 80 per cent and/or about 90 per cent of such unauthorized construction was regularized. Thus, this Court finds that only 10 per cent to 15 percent of such unauthorized construction was directed to be demolished. Still then the petitioner is not happy. As such, he has come before this Court with this writ petition. 6. Mr. Lahiri, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that when such impugned construction does not affect the air and light i.e. ventilation of the owners of the adjoining premises and/or residents thereof, the petitioner should not have been directed to remove the varanda and one room from the third floor of the said premises. He further submitted that the provision regarding the demolition of the unauthorized construction is not mandatory inasmuch as the said provision authorizes the Municipal Authority to regularize such unauthorized construction by relaxing the Building Rules on realization of penalty. In support of such submission he relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s. Rajatha Enterprise vs. S.K. Sharma & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 860 , wherein the consumed floor area in excess of the allowable floor area was saved from demolition by observing that in the absence of any evidence of public safety being, in any manner, endangered or the public or a section of the public being, in any manner, inconvenienced by reason of such unauthorized construction, the illegal construction should not be directed to be demolished. 7. Let me now consider as to how far the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision is applicable in the facts of the instant case. After giving anxious consideration to the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that in the said case the extent of illegal construction was only 742 sq. feet out of the total constructed area of 45974 odd sq. feet. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the area of deviation beyond the permissible compoundable limit was very minor and negligible. feet out of the total constructed area of 45974 odd sq. feet. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the area of deviation beyond the permissible compoundable limit was very minor and negligible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also found that when there was no evidence of public safety being, in any manner, endangered or the public or a section of a public being, in any manner, inconvenienced by reason of such unauthorized construction, such unauthorized construction cannot be directed to be demolished particularly when there was no evidence, whatsoever of dishonesty or fraud or negligence on the part of the builder. 8. In the instant case the petitioner himself admitted that he raised such unauthorized construction for making it commercially viable. That means he made such unauthorized construction with a profit-earning motive. When he raised part of such construction after obtaining a sanction plan, he knew very well that no construction can be raised without sanction plan. As such, this Court is of the view that there was no bonafide on his part in raising such unauthorized construction. That apart, the extent of unauthorized construction is not negligible in the present case as the consumed floor area ratio is 2.36 which exceeds the permissible floor area limit i.e. 1.75. Thus, this Court holds that the principle which was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision cannot be applied in the instant case and the portion which was directed to be demolished cannot be saved by relaxing the Building Rules even though such portion of the unauthorized construction does not endanger the public life and safety. 9. This Conclusion is arrived at by this Court by relying upon the following subsequent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: (i) In the case of Royal Paradise Hotel (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Reported in (2006) 7 SCC 597 ; (ii) In the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. H .V. Hotel (P) Ltd. & Anr. Reported in (2007) 2 SCC 468 ; 10. Wherein it was uniformly held that power of exemption is not to be exercised freely as exercise of such power to relax a Building Rule, Regulation or Requirement is an exception to the Rule and it is to be used with caution and to justify or condone minimum bonafide, violation or deviation. Reported in (2007) 2 SCC 468 ; 10. Wherein it was uniformly held that power of exemption is not to be exercised freely as exercise of such power to relax a Building Rule, Regulation or Requirement is an exception to the Rule and it is to be used with caution and to justify or condone minimum bonafide, violation or deviation. It was further held therein that no authority administering municipal laws can encourage such violation and in cases where violations are deliberate, designed, reckless or motivated, compounding of such unauthorized construction should not be done. It was further held therein that only marginal or insignificant accidental violations unconsciously made after trying to comply with all the requirements of law can alone qualify for regularization which is not the Rule, but a rare exception. 11. Thus, if the aforesaid principle of law is applied in the instant case this Court has no hesitation to hold that the portion which was directed to be demolished by the Special Officer (Building), and was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Forum, cannot be saved as claimed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. 12. The writ petition, thus, deserves no merit for consideration. The writ petition, thus, stands rejected with cost assessed at Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Municipal Authority within four weeks from date. Time for removing the unauthorized construction as per the direction of the Special Officer (Building) which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, by the petitioner is extended for a period of four weeks from date failing which the Municipal Authority will demolish the same and realise the cost of such demolition from the petitioner as per law. 13. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. 14. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.