Judgment On 23.11.2011, this Court passed the following order: “We are not inclined to grant further time to bring on record further pleadings but since Mr. Patni, as a last resort is seeking an opportunity to bring on record certain more facts in order to answer the pointed questions raised in the Writ Petition, we are giving him seven days’ time. Until seven days from today the Municipality is restrained from taking any decision of any nature except pertaining to matters of day to day concern. List on 8th December, 2011 in the daily cause list.” 2. By order dated 14.12.2011, this Court had, inter alia, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation, Dehradun, to enquire into the matters pertaining to the affairs of the Municipality and each of its officers. The interim order, which was already passed, was confirmed. 3. When this matter was taken-up, we considered the Application filed by the Municipality, i.e. Miscellaneous Application No. 8835 of 2014. Subsequently, a fresh affidavit dated 12.08.2014 has been filed. Therein, the Municipality seeks to vary the order already passed by this Court, as tender process is to be initiated for completion of various important works, which are as follows: “(a) The construction work of roads, small and big drains, maintenance /repair of toilets / construction of protective walls, etc. within the jurisdiction and control of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mussoorie; (b) New construction of Mussoorie-Ghantaghar (Tower Clock); (c) Construction of multipurpose Town Hall; (d) Construction of multipurpose Parking/s; (e) Purchase of materials pertaining to cleaning, health and hygiene of the city; (f) Purchase of materials pertaining to lighting and other electrical materials for the city.” 4. We have heard Mr. A. Rab, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the Municipality; Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4; Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I.; and Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State. 5. After having heard the matter and taking note of the fact that a new set of counsellors have been elected replacing the earlier counsellors, we feel that the interim order passed by this Court must be modified so as to permit the Municipality, if it is so advised and thinks it so fit, to carry out the works mentioned in (a), (d), (e) & (f) extracted above. The prayer as regards works mentioned in (b) and (c) will stand rejected for the time being. 6. We make it very clear that we have only lifted the prohibition against the Municipality carrying out the aforesaid activities. In other words, the order modifying the earlier order must not be, in any manner, treated as giving our seal of approval or placing our imprimatur on the aforesaid activities. This order only enables the Municipality to carry out those activities if it is authorized to do so by law and on the basis of any decision it takes as per law again. This order will also not obviate the necessity of obtaining further permission or approval from any other authorities as per law. Miscellaneous Application No. 8835 of 2014 is, accordingly, disposed of. 7. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 seeks permission to withdraw Miscellaneous Application No. 8767 of 2014 at this stage. The Application is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. 8. We notice that the CBI Inquiry was ordered as per the order of this Court dated 14.12.2011. We would expect the Central Bureau of Investigation to expedite the inquiry and submit its report at the earliest. Every effort shall be made to complete this inquiry and submit the report to this Court by 30th November, 2014. 9. List this case on 1st December, 2014.