ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Principal Additional Advocate General for the Patna Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) and Learned Counsel for private respondent nos. 8 and 9. 2. In this Public Interest Litigation, the allegation is that the Corporation has permitted illegal construction of a multistoried apartment complex building on Khata No. 83, Khesra No.1151, Thana No.4, situated in Ward No.34, Circle No. 246 situated off the East Boring Canal Road in the heart of Patna town. The construction is being raised in a lane approximately 8 feet in width only while the law requires a minimum 20 feet wide road. Complaints have been filed before the before the Municipal Commissioner-cum-Chief Administrator of the Corporation but to no avail necessitating the present application. 3. The building plan is stated to have been sanctioned on 17.5.2011 under Section 314 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by a Licensed Architect Sri A.R. Rakesh Ranjan Raje bearing registration no.88/9665 and empanelment no. 29 of 2009-2010. Section 316 of the Act requires the Architect approving the construction plan to submit it within seven days to the Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipality. On receipt of the approved building plan, the Chief Municipal Officer shall enquire/verify and satisfy himself that the building construction plan confirms to building bye-laws and other parameters required under the Act. If the Chief Municipal Officer finds that the construction has been approved by the registered Architect in contravention of bye-laws he shall immediately stop the construction work and take action against the owner/occupier as also registered Architect. Section 318 requires periodical inspection of the construction by the registered architect and report violations to the Corporation. The Chief Municipal Officer in that event shall inspect and stop the construction and take necessary action including demolition. Section 325 provides for five years imprisonment and fifty thousand fine for illegal construction. Section 337 of the Act requires the Chief Municipal Officer at any time during the erection or re-erection of a building or the execution of any work under this Act to make an inspection thereof without giving any previous notice of his intention to do so. 4. Section 337 of the Act requires the Chief Municipal Officer at any time during the erection or re-erection of a building or the execution of any work under this Act to make an inspection thereof without giving any previous notice of his intention to do so. 4. Respondent No. 9, the land owner was unable to tell us the date when the construction commenced on his lands, but the builder, respondent No. 8 informed us that the construction commenced in May 2011 though there is no material on record in support of the same. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation. It contains no statement with regard to compliance of Section 316 of the Act by the Architect regarding submission of the plan sanctioned to the Chief Municipal Officer within seven days and the satisfaction of the Chief Municipal Officer that the sanctioned plan was in accordance with the building bye-laws. There is no statement of any periodical inspection report submitted by the architect under Section 318 that the construction was being made in accordance with the sanctioned plan or deviating from the same. No periodical inspection was done by the Chief Municipal Officer also under Section 337. The gross violation of the building bye laws may have been successfully colluded between the Corporation and the builder but for the present public interest litigation. 6. The Principal Additional Advocate General submitted the Chief Municipal Officer is not required to certify anything on the plan sanctioned by the Architect. We do not agree with the same. It was his duty to ensure that the architect submitted the sanctioned plan within seven days after which the Chief Municipal officer was required to verify the same and take necessary action in accordance with law. After we queried the Corporation on 17.4.2013 why no action was taken on the complaint, the site was examined by the Corporation for the first time on 22.4.2013. The Corporation then obtained a vigilance report and has instituted Vigilance Case No. 14A/2013, against the private respondents. It states that there is deviation in height i.e. up to 16.04 meters. The width of the road in front is 3.59 Meters which is less than the requirement as per building bye laws. The sanction has been granted for G +3 whereas on the site G + 4 is being made. It states that there is deviation in height i.e. up to 16.04 meters. The width of the road in front is 3.59 Meters which is less than the requirement as per building bye laws. The sanction has been granted for G +3 whereas on the site G + 4 is being made. Notices have been issued under Section 324 (1) of the Act to show cause why the unauthorized construction should not be demolished. The Principal Additional Advocate General suggested that since the Municipal Corporation is now seized of the matter and has initiated Vigilance case the Public Interest Litigation may be disposed off. We are not in agreement with the same. But for the present case, the illegal construction would have continued suiting the builder and those responsible in the Corporation for enforcing the law. 7. The private respondent Nos. 8 and 9 submitted that present case was not a bona fide Public Interest Litigation. It had been filed after the petitioner failed to obtain a flat from the builder under threat of litigation as evident from a legal notice dated 22. 5.2012. It was denied that there had been violation of the building bye-laws in terms of the road width and height. If the builder and the petitioner were in pari delicto we do not consider the same sufficient ground to dismiss this application and allow a blatant illegality to be perpetuated to embolden others also. 8. In view of the pending Vigilance case we do not consider it proper at this stage to say anymore with regard to the facts of this case which in any event are glaring and speak for themselves. The private respondents shall have full opportunity of hearing. The final order in the Vigilance case shall be placed before us. 9. We take notice of the fact that the present is not an isolated exception case in the Town of Patna. It is not possible for every citizen to approach this Court every time there is a building violation. Yet the number of such cases filed reveals a serious malady with allegations for construction of illegal apartments by builders. Complaints are filed by citizens before the Corporation which are ignored for very obvious reasons suiting the builder and those required to enforce the law. Yet the number of such cases filed reveals a serious malady with allegations for construction of illegal apartments by builders. Complaints are filed by citizens before the Corporation which are ignored for very obvious reasons suiting the builder and those required to enforce the law. If applications are disposed by the Court to consider the grievances still no action is taken by the Corporation leading to a repeat writ application by the aggrieved. The Corporation then reluctantly looks into the matter to report violations. Urban planning in the town of Patna leaves much to be desired. The municipal building bye laws appear to be followed more in breach by the Corporation than enforcement of the law. There has been and continues a mushroom growth of apartments even in lanes and bye lanes in gross violation of building bye laws. An ingenious device was introduced by the authorities that even if the road in front was uniformly not twenty feet wide, the builder would leave area in front of a building to make the road twenty feet wide in front only. The Corporation would then imagine a non-existent state of affairs that the entire road was twenty feet wide and approve the building plan. Urban planning has been reduced to a zig zag road with the builder also subsequently enclosing that area shown as part of the road for private use ultimately. The resultant is urban chaos in Patna, all its aspects. 10. We are satisfied that at some point of time a beginning has to be made for enforcement of the Municipal laws which as we observed the other day in another Public Interest Litigation are not artefacts to be kept in the museum of the statute book or the archives of the Corporation. We therefore direct that till further orders no apartment complex or multistoried building can be constructed beyond 11 meters and upto 15 meters in height unless the entire stretch and length of road in front abutting the building is uniformly and throughout 20 feet in width. 11. This shall be enforced with immediate effect collectively by the Secretary, Urban Development Department, the Municipal Commissioner, the District Magistrate, the Senior Superintendent of Police and Officer In-charge of the Police Station of the area concerned. 11. This shall be enforced with immediate effect collectively by the Secretary, Urban Development Department, the Municipal Commissioner, the District Magistrate, the Senior Superintendent of Police and Officer In-charge of the Police Station of the area concerned. The Registrar Co-operative Societies shall survey all Co-operative Housing Societies and ensure with the assistance of the Secretary, Urban Development, District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police and the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station that no apartment complex is permitted to be made in a Co-operative Housing Society except in terms of the conditions of Land Acquisition made by the government and the bye-laws of the Housing Society including the width of the road. Violations shall be reported by the Registrar to the State government for appropriate action in terms of the conditions of Land Acquisition. If all such constructions are not stopped immediately and are permitted to continue despite our order, and it is brought to our attention, the officers shall be collectively and individually answerable for willfully flouting the orders of the Court. 12. We also take notice of the fact that urban planning with regard to permitted land use provided for in the Municipal bye laws has completely been abandoned by the Corporation turning a complete blind eye to the same refusing to enforce the law. The distinction between a residential area and non-residential/commercial area has been completely rendered otiose. Free construction of non-residential/commercial buildings and non-residential activities in residential areas continues unabated, with new activities being started every day and the authorities turning a blind eye to the same if not actually encouraging it by sanctioning plans contrary to permitted land use. We are satisfied that for the same again a beginning has to be made at some time to enforce the law. We therefore direct that till further orders commencing from today the Corporation and the Registrar Co-operative Societies shall ensure that no new commercial construction or commercial/ non-residential activity is allowed to start fresh on a residential plot in view of Section 338 and 342 of the Act. This shall include not only proposed constructions but also all on going constructions/ finishing where commercial/ non-residential activity has actually not commenced before today. The question of sympathy or equity does not arise for acts done in violation of the law. This shall include not only proposed constructions but also all on going constructions/ finishing where commercial/ non-residential activity has actually not commenced before today. The question of sympathy or equity does not arise for acts done in violation of the law. The Corporation shall not issue occupancy certificate under Section 327 of the Act to any such building/ commercial/non-residential construction on a residential plot. The State Electricity Board shall not grant non-residential connection on a residential plot being used contrary to permitted land use. The Secretary, Urban Development shall communicate the same to the Chairman of the Bihar State Electricity Board. Only such commercial and non-residential constructions which are already occupied and fully operational stand excluded from our orders at present. The State Electricity Board shall not energise supply to all such non-residential constructions/ user of residential plots being used contrary to permitted land use. The need for corrective action with regard to existing impermissible land use shall be considered by us at a later date. Non-residential user for such purposes shall mean and include as provided under Section 338 of the Act Commercial shops/ Departmental stores, Eateries, Banks, Schools/Coaching Institutes, Hostels, Hotels, Wedding Halls ( excluding those established according to permissible land use), Petrol pumps, Commercial godowns, and Hospitals/Nursing homes but shall exclude Clinical consultation chambers. This is only illustrative and not exhaustive. This part of the order shall also be enforced collectively by the Secretary, Urban Development, District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police, Officer-in-charge of the area concerned and the Registrar Co-operative Societies, with the assistance of all of the former in so far as Housing Co-operative Societies are concerned. The answerability shall rest likewise collectively for non-compliance/flouting the order of the Court. It shall not be a defence for any government authority/body to contend that it has not been impleaded as a formal party in view of (2010) 15 SCC 278. 13. We require the aforesaid authorities to file a compliance report on the next date locality wise for the enforcement of our orders on both counts. The report shall identify plot numbers along with name of owners on which constructions have been stopped and new non-residential user prohibited and closed. 14. 13. We require the aforesaid authorities to file a compliance report on the next date locality wise for the enforcement of our orders on both counts. The report shall identify plot numbers along with name of owners on which constructions have been stopped and new non-residential user prohibited and closed. 14. We also require the Patna Municipal Corporation to assist us in this Public Interest Litigation by furnishing details with regard to Establishment of the Municipality along with the schedule of posts as provided under Section 37 of the Act along with whether section 44 of the Act has been enforced by issuance of necessary notification and appointments. 15. We expect that by the next date Patna Municipal Corporation would have passed final orders in the Vigilance Case. 16. Till further orders, the private respondents shall not make any construction/maintenance finishing of the building under construction. 17. Let a copy of this order be forwarded immediately to the Secretary, Urban Development, District Magistrate, Patna, Senior Superintendent of Police , Patna (who in turn shall forward it to all police stations), and the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Patna, the Chairman Bihar State Electricity Board for immediate compliance. 18. List on 28th June, 2013 at 2.15 P.M.