ORDER In spite of Dr. Thomas Fuller’s warning in 1733 saying ‘be ye never so high, the law is above you’ and reiterated later by Lord Denning, still some feel that they can violate law with impunity. 2. These two writ petitions are disposed of by a common order in view of the common issue involved in them. FACTS OF THE CASE: 3. The parties are described, for the sake of convenience, as they are arrayed in W.P.17943 of 2008. 4. One, Smt. M.Madhavi, the 3rd respondent, is the owner of properties bearing premises bearing Nos.33-25-32, Bellapu Sobhanadri Street, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada and premises bearing Nos. 33-18-13, 13A and 14, situated at C.V.K. Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada in her own capacity and as Managing Director of M/s. Venkateswara Hospitals (P) Ltd. Her husband, the 4th respondent is an Orthopaedic Surgeon. Her property has two neighbours. One neighbour is a owner of property, premises bearing door No.33-18-16, situated at C.V.K.Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada (Petitioner in W.P.12214 of 2008) and the other is the owner of another property, premises bearing door No.33-25-33, situated at Bellapu Sobhanadri Street, Vijayawada (Petitioner in W.P.17943 of 2008). She initially obtained sanction for construction of RCC roof slab for ground + three floors in premises bearing door Nos.33-25-32, NTS No.791, Vijayawada through proceedings of the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, 2nd respondent, in B.A.No.1653/2005, dated 09.09.2005. The said sanction plan was for construction of residential building, but the building was constructed to suit their convenience to run a hospital. The Petitioner in W.P.12214/2008 got issued a registered notice on 19.11.2007 to the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action. It was followed by another notice on 23.11.2007 to the 2nd respondent to take expeditious action on the subject. The 3rd respondent got issued a reply dated 01.12.2007 admitting the fact that her hospital is being run in the building. She filed an application for regularising the deviated portion of the constructions and no further orders were passed in view of orders in W.P.M.P.No.1276 of 2008 in W.P.No.1069 of 2008 dated 27-3-2008. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed report on 16-7-2008 with regard to the deviations. 5. The 3rd respondent obtained another permission from the second respondent in B.A.No.1260/2007 dated 19.05.2007 for construction of RCC roof slab for stilt, ground + four floors for residential building in premises bearing door No.33-18-14, 13 & 13A. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed report on 16-7-2008 with regard to the deviations. 5. The 3rd respondent obtained another permission from the second respondent in B.A.No.1260/2007 dated 19.05.2007 for construction of RCC roof slab for stilt, ground + four floors for residential building in premises bearing door No.33-18-14, 13 & 13A. The above petitioner again got issued a notice on 21.01.2008 requesting the 3rd respondent not to proceed with the unauthorised constructions. The petitioner obtained copies of approved plans and issued another notice to the 2nd respondent to stop illegal constructions of the 3rd respondent. When the respondents did not take any action, the W.P.No.12214 of 2000 was filed. The third respondent denied the allegation that the building was constructed in violation of master plan and zonal regulations. She stated that her husband, 4th respondent was using the said building to run a nursing home which is permissible in residential area. Since there were minor deviations to the sanctioned plan, she applied for regularisation of deviations by paying requisite fee prescribed by the Government. She denied the allegation of nuisance and harassment to the petitioner. She further stated that she, along with Sri Venkateswara Hospitals Private Limited are the joint owners of the property situated at C.K.Street, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada and she obtained permission for construction of residential apartments vide B.A.No.1260/2007 dated 19.05.2007. Since the sanctioned plan was not suitable to their needs and as the 4th respondent is a doctor by profession, she leased out the property bearing door No.33-18-14, 13, 13A in favour of Sri M.Jeeva Ratnam Naidu who is none other than her husband and he applied for revised building permission proposing to construct a sub-cellar, cellar and ground floor + four upper floors for nursing home. When the application satisfied the conditions under G.O.Ms.No.678 dated 07.09.2007 and G.O.Ms.No.281 dated 01.04.2008, the building permission was granted. It is stated that the petitioner in W.P.17943 of 2008 himself had given his house for running a hospital under the name and style of “Dr. Satish’s Endocare” to one doctor Satish Chandra. It is stated that the writ petition was filed in order to cause wrongful loss to them. 6. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.17943 of 2008 that the 4th respondent initially purchased a house in the name of the 3rd respondent in an extent of about 318 square yards bearing house No.33-18-15. It is stated that the writ petition was filed in order to cause wrongful loss to them. 6. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.17943 of 2008 that the 4th respondent initially purchased a house in the name of the 3rd respondent in an extent of about 318 square yards bearing house No.33-18-15. He demolished the said house and constructed a hospital and was running the same for the last 18 years. He also purchased a house bearing house No.33-18-13 and another house bearing house No.33-18-13A to the north of the petitioner. Later, the 4th respondent purchased two other properties to the north of his hospital with a view to construct a super speciality hospital by demolishing the existing hospital. The house to the backside of the existing hospital bearing house No.33-25-32 is adjacent to the house of the petitioner. The petitioner further stated that in view of construction of hospital on southern side and western side with five floors, it is impossible for a family to reside as a neighbour. The patients were throwing used cottons, bandages, etc., and no set backs were maintained, as a result of which, they lost privacy. It is also stated that sanctioning of revised plan by the Corporation on 27.10.2008 in the place of old plan in the name of the 4th respondent, pending writ petition was illegal. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.17943 of 2008 and sought a further direction to demolish the unauthorised structures. 7. The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, the 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the 3rd respondent initially obtained permission for construction of a residential building of stilt, ground and four upper floors, but committed deviations by constructing cellar floor. When the construction was going on, she leased out the total property in favour of her husband, 4th respondent and he, as a lease holder, applied for building permission with revised proposal for construction of a sub-cellar, cellar, ground and four upper floors for nursing home duly seeking exemption that can be allowed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.281 dated 01.04.2008. The revised building permission was granted vide B.A.No.851/2008 dated 27.10.2008. After obtaining building permission for construction of stilt, ground + four floors for residential building, he constructed the building in deviation of the approved plan. The revised building permission was granted vide B.A.No.851/2008 dated 27.10.2008. After obtaining building permission for construction of stilt, ground + four floors for residential building, he constructed the building in deviation of the approved plan. The allegation that the Corporation did not take any action on the construction commenced in deviation to the approved plan was denied. It is stated that after receiving complaints, notices under Sections 42(1) and 43(1) of A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 read with Section 452 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, GHMC Act) were issued. On receiving the show cause notice, the 3rd respondent submitted her explanation stating that due to the soft nature of the soil, the Structural Engineer and the Architect advised her to construct a pillar from sufficient depth as well as slab like cellar floor and stated that it was not intended to use as a cellar floor. It is further stated that she also assured to fill up the area below the ground floor with sand and rubbish after completion of the building. She further stated in her explanation that she did not violate any of the rules and regulations and requested for dropping action. She also submitted an application requesting for regularising the deviated portions of the constructions in premises bearing door No.33-25-32 against which action was initiated. It is further stated by the 2nd respondent in his counter that they have discretion for taking action for removal of the deviations but cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 8. This Court, by order dated 16.07.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.15744 of 2008 in W.P.No.12214 of 2008, after noticing that the 3rd respondent has not entered appearance in spite of serving a notice, granted interim direction to the second respondent to depute one of its officers to the premises of the 3rd respondent and submit a status report indicating the nature of permission accorded to the 4th respondent and if it was accorded, whether it was residential purpose or commercial purpose. 9. In pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 16.07.2008, the City Planner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, was deputed to inspect the premises of the owner and he submitted a report which reads as follows: “…….. The building permission was granted in BA.No.1653/2005, dt.9-9-2005. 9. In pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 16.07.2008, the City Planner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, was deputed to inspect the premises of the owner and he submitted a report which reads as follows: “…….. The building permission was granted in BA.No.1653/2005, dt.9-9-2005. The said construction was commenced and completed in deviation to the approval given and the said owner of the property unauthorisedly constructed cellar, ground, mezzanine floor & 3 upper floors and a part 4th floor with AC sheet roof building with deviations as detailed below. The owner of the said property also deviated in use of the building and unauthorisedly converted the usage from residential to hospital. Sl.No. Description As per approved plan As on ground Remarks 1. Front (E) 5.0 M 3.96 M 1.04 M less 2. Rear (W) 5.0 M --- 5.0 M less 3. Side (N) 2.50 M 0.76 1.74 M less 4. Side (S) 2.50 M 1.12 1.38 M less 5. No. of floors Ground + 3 floors Cellar + ground + Mezzanine + 4 upper floors Cellar floor and two floors excess 6. Usage Residential Hospital Deviation Already the respondent Corporation initiated action for the deviations committed and issued notices vide UC.No.97/05, dt.31-12-05, U.C.Notice No.6/06, dt.29-4-06, UC.No.20/06, dt.15-5-06 and UC.No.26/06, dt.6-7-06 under the provisions of Section 42 (1) 43 (1) of AP UDA Act, 1975 read with Section 452 of HMC Act, 1955. Subsequently, the said owner of the property submitted applications along with plans requesting to regularize the deviated constructed portions in terms of G.O.Ms.No.901, dt.31-12-07 vide BPS application No.1/2008. No action has been taken on the said application in pursuance of Hon’ble A.P. High Court orders in WPMP.No.1276/08 in WP.No.1069/08, dt.27-3-08.” 10. In respect of the property built by her husband, 4th respondent, it reads as follows: “………. As on the date of inspection i.e., on 28-7-2008 the status of the construction with set back deviations is as follows:- Sl. No. Description As per approved plan As on ground Remarks 1. Front set back (North) 7.04 M 7.50 M No deviation 2. Rear set back (South) 4.20 M 4.05 M 0.15 M less 3. Side set back (East) 4.00 M/4.50 M 3.65 M/3.50 M 0.35 M/1.00 M Less 4. No. Description As per approved plan As on ground Remarks 1. Front set back (North) 7.04 M 7.50 M No deviation 2. Rear set back (South) 4.20 M 4.05 M 0.15 M less 3. Side set back (East) 4.00 M/4.50 M 3.65 M/3.50 M 0.35 M/1.00 M Less 4. Side set back (West) 4.50 M 3.60 M 0.90 M less Though, the permission was obtained for construction of apartment building consisting of stilt floor for parking and ground floor + flour floors, Smt.M.Madhavi (R-4 in this writ) has constructed sub-cellar floor unauthorisedly and further proceeded for construction of cellar floor and the work is at slab level. At present the work was stopped. Further it is to submit that the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation has accorded permission to Smt.M.Madhavi (R-4 in this writ) for construction of residential apartment building consisting of stilt floor for parking, ground floor + 4 upper floors vide B.A.No.1260/07 dt.19-5-07. But Smt.Madhavi (R-4 in this writ) has constructed sub-cellar floor unauthorisedly and cellar floor upto roof level. Since the construction is at parking floor level, the proposed use of the building cannot be confirmed at the time of this report. Further any deviation to the approved plan or usage from residential apartment to other non residential use in future the VMC will initiate action for revoking the building permit issued in B.A.No.1260/07 dt.19-5-07.” 11. The petitioner filed WPMP.No.36133 of 2008 in W.P.17943 of 2008 subsequent to the sanction of revised permission seeking amendment of the prayer and the same was ordered on 30.04.2009. This Court, on 06.05.2009 in WPMP.No.23360 of 2008 in W.P.No.17943 of 2008, while granting time to file counter-affidavit held that any constructions made by respondents 3 and 4 shall be subject to the result of the writ petition and they shall not claim equities. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal vide W.A.(SR).No.62108 of 2009 with an application vide WAMP.No.1755 of 2009 to condone the delay of 8 days in filing the writ appeal. The said application was dismissed by imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- in view of the statements made in the affidavit filed in support of the said application, by order dated 09.07.2009. The petitioner did not rest there. The said application was dismissed by imposing a cost of Rs.10,000/- in view of the statements made in the affidavit filed in support of the said application, by order dated 09.07.2009. The petitioner did not rest there. He filed Special Leave Petition (Civil Appeal) No.24823 of 2003 against the said order and the same was dismissed on 19.10.2009 with an observation that the learned Single Judge would consider the matter uninfluenced by any observations made by the Division Bench. 12. In WPMP.No.1520 of 2013 in W.P.No.17943 of 2008, dated 15.03.2013, a Commissioner was appointed for making local inspection and note down the physical features of the subject building constructed by respondents 3 and 4, height of the building, construction over and above four upper floors and details of fire safety measures taken in respect of the building including the scope for free movement of fire fighting vehicles to reach the building. The Advocate Commissioner submitted a report dated 30.04.2013 giving details of her observations and also stating that she was not allowed to go on top of the building i.e., above the 6th floor by the third respondent. She also observed that the building was consisting of sub-cellar, Cellar, ground, four floors and two pent houses on fifth and sixth floors. At the time of her inspection, some construction work was going on, on top of the building above sixth floor, but she was not allowed to see and report the exact nature of the work. Ultimately, she ended her report as follows: “6. I am constrained to state herein that the commission work started at 10.30 AM and completed at 3.30 PM though it doesn’t require such lengthy time because of the non co-operation of the 3rd respondent, it got delayed. Initially she participated and left the place after an hour. Thereafter, after three hours she returned and asked for re-measurement of set backs, height etc. In 4th floor all the doors are closed and inspite of telling she did not open the doors. When I wanted to go to the terrace she said that keys are not available. But, some work is going on the terrace, due to which the 3rd respondent doesn’t want me to note in my report. I was made to suffer in the hot summer even for obtaining signatures on the proceedings sheet. When I wanted to go to the terrace she said that keys are not available. But, some work is going on the terrace, due to which the 3rd respondent doesn’t want me to note in my report. I was made to suffer in the hot summer even for obtaining signatures on the proceedings sheet. I was made to wait for 2 hours at the schedule premises after completing the execution at 3.30 PM for her signatures. I could come out only at 6.40 PM after obtaining her signatures, as she refused to sign immediately after execution of the warrant. It is learnt that the 3rd respondent is a law graduate, but her behaviour is not upto the level of being a law graduate and her attitude deserves strong condemnation in the possible works as she has not given any minimum respect to me being lady appointed by the Hon’ble High Court” 13. It is pertinent to point out that respondents 3 and 4 did not want the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises and filed W.A.No.464 of 2013 against the order dated 15.03.2013 in WPMP.No.1520 of 2013 in W.P.No.17943 of 2008 and the said appeal was disposed of on 03.06.2013, since it was represented that the order had already worked out and the report was submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, but giving liberty to the appellants-respondents 3 and 4 to file their objections to the said report within a reasonable period. 14. When the matters came up before this Court on 16.12.2013, after hearing the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for Corporation, this Court directed the Commissioner of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation to inspect the premises personally and file a status report with regard to constructions made by respondents 3 and 4 pursuant to the building permission granted on 27.10.2008 as there was serious dispute with regard to the constructions made by them. In pursuance of the said orders, the Commissioner inspected the premises with the help of the Town Planning Officer on 27.10.2013 and filed the report which reads as follows: “The proposed plans sanctioned in B.A.No.1260/2007, dt.19-5-2007 in D.No.33-18-14, 13, 13A. The proposed site falls in Residential land use as per Master Plan B.A.No.1260/2007 sanctioned as per G.O.Ms.No.423 M.A. Dt.31-7-1998. In pursuance of the said orders, the Commissioner inspected the premises with the help of the Town Planning Officer on 27.10.2013 and filed the report which reads as follows: “The proposed plans sanctioned in B.A.No.1260/2007, dt.19-5-2007 in D.No.33-18-14, 13, 13A. The proposed site falls in Residential land use as per Master Plan B.A.No.1260/2007 sanctioned as per G.O.Ms.No.423 M.A. Dt.31-7-1998. Again the applicant submitted revised plans for construction of Cellar, Sub-Cellar, G.F + 4 upper floors for Nursing Home in 33-18-13a, 14, 15 by M.J.Naidu, S/o.M.Venkata Ramanaidu, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada, Narasimha Naidu Street. In the revised plans submitted by M.J.Naidu based on the lease documents obtained from M.Madhavi his wife. Occupancy for the building has been issued vide B.A.No.851/2008/G2 dt.13-05-2011 after obtaining N.O.C. from Fire Department vide Rc.No.839/FPW/VMC/2010 dt.06-01-2011 V.M.C. During outdoor inspection by T.P. Staff, deviations in the building were found and a notice U/S.452 of HMC Act was issued vide U.C.No.01/2012 dt.23-01-2012 to stop the unauthorized floors constructed partly in 5th and 6th floors as duplex residential building and to bring the building as per the approved plan. S.No. As per approval As on Ground Remarks 1 2 3 4 1. B.A. No.1260/2007 dt. 195.07 Stilt, G.F. + 4 upper floors Residential Building by applicant Smt. M. Madhavi W/o M.J. Naidu D.No. 33-18-14, 13, 13A Constructed Cellar + Sub-Cellar + G.F. + 4 upper floors Residential Building At the time of Construction they have applied for revised plans 2. Revised B.A. No. 851/08 dt.27.10.08 Cellar, Sub-Cellar + G.F. + 4 upper floors Nursing Home by M.J. Naidu, S/o M. Venkataratnam Naidu, D. No. 33-18-13A, 14, 15 Constructed Cellar + Sub-Cellar + G.F. + 4 upper floors Nursing Home Building Part of 5 th & 6 th floors (duplex) constructed as residence of doctor 3. Occupancy Certificate for B.A. No.851/08/G2 Dt.13.5.2011 Fire Certificate 839/FPW/VMS/2010 dt.06.1.2011, V.M.C. Construction of Cellar + Sub-Cellar + G.F. + 4 upper floors After obtaining occupancy certificate cellar was constructed with partitions made for various purpose 4. U.C. No. 01/12 dt23.01.2010 U/s 452 of HMC Act Unauthorized Construction of 5 th & 6 th floor duplex partly of the building After issuance of occupancy certificate constructed partly 5 th & 6 th floors (duplex) house 5. Front Set back (N) 2.68/2.30M Front Set Back (N) : 2.72/2.46 M Satisfied Rear (S) 2.92/2.41 M Rear (S) 2.50/2.55 M 0.38 Mts. Front Set back (N) 2.68/2.30M Front Set Back (N) : 2.72/2.46 M Satisfied Rear (S) 2.92/2.41 M Rear (S) 2.50/2.55 M 0.38 Mts. deviated on one corner Side (E) : 2.03/2.12 M Side (E) : 2.20/2.33 M Satisfied Side (W) : 2.04/3.71 M Side (W) 2.20/2.40 M Satisfied Height of the building 14.97 Mts. Height of the building 22.38 Mts. Above 15 mts. Fire NOC shall obtain from DG fire department, no fire NOC submitted for unauthorized construction of two floors Road width (N) : Existing – 9.00 Mrs. Proposed – 12.00 Mrs. (Narasimha Naidu Road) Road width (N) Existing -9.00 Mts. Proposed – NIL – Mts. (Narasimha Naidu Road) Road widening portion was covered with Ramp Road width (W) : Existing -9.00 Mts. N. Chalasani Venkata Ramana Street) Road width (W) : 9.00 Mts. (Chalasani Venkata Ramana Street) Satisfied Land use : Residential Land use : Nursing Home As G.O. MS No.674 MA Dt.29.12.2006 Nursing home is permissible but running Super Speciality Hospital 6. Sub-Cellar-Parking Sub-Cellar Parking Satisfied Cellar – Parking Cellar – Admn. Office + Conference Hall Administrative Office & Conference Hall not permissible As per approved plan permission was given for Residential building and again revised plans were approved for Nursing Home consisting Cellar + Sub-Cellar + G.F + 4 upper floors building. As on ground position the applicant constructed Sub-Cellar which is being used for parking but in the cellar an administrative office with Aluminium partitioned Glass fitting and a conference hall is being run. In approved plan, the height of the building was 14.97M, but 5th and 6th floors duplex residential building has been unauthorizedly constructed increasing height of the building from 14.97M to 22.38M in back side i.e. south-west corner of the building. The rear setback is covered with plastic sheets by rising the compound wall and side open space (east side) over and above the cellar ramp and used for running canteen. The front setback is covered 1.90M with front elevation mirrors work. As per sanctioned Master Plan the site is residential land use in which nursing homes are permitted but the applicant converted into Super Speciality Hospital. The building abutting to Master plan road on Eastern side is 9.00 Mts. The building owner left master plan road widening to a depth of 3.00 mts and west side existing road width is 9.00 Mts. The building abutting to Master plan road on Eastern side is 9.00 Mts. The building owner left master plan road widening to a depth of 3.00 mts and west side existing road width is 9.00 Mts. The applicant is paying Property Tax vide Assessment No.189547, Narasimha Naidu Street, Suryaraopet, D.No.33-8-33A, Vijayawada. Photographs and sketches are herewith enclosed for perusal.” 15. Even when two neighbours were watching the constructions and complaining of violations, the respondents 3 and 4 who are well educated and respectable citizens constructed a Superspeciality hospital in Vijayawada City to the consternation of them and the Municipal Commissioner remained a silent spectator. The neighbours relentlessly fought and brought the issue to the notice of this court and this court is called upon to review the nature of constructions within the parameters of law. In spite of directions, the 2nd respondent did not produce the entire record, but produced only the record of sanction plan in B.A.No.851/2008. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL: 16. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners in both the writ petitions, the learned Standing Counsel for Corporation and the learned Senior Counsel, Sri L. Ravichander for respondents 3 and 4. 17. The learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.12214 of 2008 submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.674, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (I2) Department, dated 29.12.2006, the building regulations in the residential use zone permit only dispensaries and nursing homes, whereas in respect of dispensaries/nursing homes/health centres (20 bed)/hospitals not treating contiguous diseases or mental patients, the permission of the VGTMUDA is necessary. However, in respect of hospitals treating contagious and infectious diseases, they should not be established in the residential use zone. It is submitted that since the land falls within the residential zone, the establishment of super speciality hospital by the respondents 3 and 4 cannot be permitted by the 2nd respondent. 18. The learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.17943 of 2008 submitted that in respect of buildings of height about 15 meters and below 18 meters, necessary prior clearance from Fire Department is necessary for buildings having six floors, as per G.O.Ms.No.678, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department, dated 07.09.2007. In the instant case, only provisional no-objection certificate obtained from Fire and Emergency Services Department vide Rc.No.5391/A4/2008, dated 27.09.2008 was submitted and the 2nd respondent should not have permitted the running of super speciality hospital. 19. In the instant case, only provisional no-objection certificate obtained from Fire and Emergency Services Department vide Rc.No.5391/A4/2008, dated 27.09.2008 was submitted and the 2nd respondent should not have permitted the running of super speciality hospital. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions contended that the constructions were made in total disregard to the zonal regulations under the Urban Areas (Development) Act and the building rules framed under the GHMC Act. They vehemently contended that even though they have been complaining right from the beginning, the Corporation has not taken appropriate action against respondents 3 and 4 and they have neglected their duty. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Corporation submitted that in respect of the constructions made by the third respondent an application for regularisation of deviations is pending and in respect of deviations made by 4th respondent appropriate notices were issued. The learned Senior Counsel for respondents 3 and 4, in the face of the report dated 27.10.2013 submitted by the Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation did not justify the deviations, but stated that this Court cannot do the duty of ‘policing’ and should confine itself to the functions of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. FINDINGS: 20. The facts in these cases are not in dispute. The 3rd respondent obtained a building permission for construction of ground and three upper floors of residential building premises door No.33-25-32 in B.A.No.1653/2005, dated 09.09.2005 and constructed a building with deviations from the sanctioned plan and was utilising it for the purpose of hospital. When complaints were made with regard to the deviations, she applied to the second respondent for regularisation of deviations and the same is pending. Though initially she obtained a building permission in B.A.No.1260/2007 for stilt, ground + four upper floors in respect of premises bearing door No.33-18-13, 13A and 14 and constructed the cellar floor, she later leased out the said property in favour of the 4th respondent. He applied for a revised building permission for construction of a sub-cellar, cellar, ground + four upper floors for nursing home duly seeking exemption that can be allowed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.281 dated 01.04.2008. The said construction was challenged by the petitioners and this Court by an order dated 16.07.2008 called for a status report. He applied for a revised building permission for construction of a sub-cellar, cellar, ground + four upper floors for nursing home duly seeking exemption that can be allowed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.281 dated 01.04.2008. The said construction was challenged by the petitioners and this Court by an order dated 16.07.2008 called for a status report. Later on in W.P.M.P.No.1520 of 2013, dated 15.03.2013, an Advocate Commissioner was also appointed and she submitted a report on 30.04.2013. Since she was not allowed to inspect the entire building, the learned counsel for petitioners pointed the lapse and this Court by order dated 16.12.2013 called for a report from the Municipal Commissioner. He inspected the premises on 27.10.2013 and submitted a report pointing out the deviations in respect of the constructions made by the 3rd respondent as well as the 4th respondent under B.A.No.1260/2007 and B.A.No.851/2008. It appears from the report that an Occupancy Certificate was issued in B.A.No.851/08/G2, dated 13.05.2011. A notice under Section 452 of the Act was issued on 23.01.2012 to which an explanation appears to have been submitted. The report of the Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Commissioner is self-explanatory. 21. Basing on these deviations, the learned Senior Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 could not justify the action of the respondents 3 and 4 but reminded this Court’s writ jurisdiction. It is well settled, that this Court, while exercising its power of judicial review in respect of actions of the Municipal authorities, is not discharging the police duties, but exercising its powers given under the provisions of the Constitution and directing implementation of laws made for larger public good. The powers of judicial review need not be elaborated. He did not object either to the application of G.O.Ms.No.674 dated 29.12.2006 or of G.O.Ms.No.678 dated 07.09.2007 to the case of the petitioners. The record also reveals that the provisional no-objection certificate issued by the Fire and Emergency Services Department for construction of a super speciality hospital building in premises bearing door No.33-18-13A, 14 and 15 is subject to the conditions mentioned therein. As per the certificate, the occupant load is mentioned as 20 in respect of ground floor and 40 each in respect of ground, first, second, third and fourth floors. The said certificate is only provisional and not final. 22. As per the certificate, the occupant load is mentioned as 20 in respect of ground floor and 40 each in respect of ground, first, second, third and fourth floors. The said certificate is only provisional and not final. 22. The approved Zonal Development Plan of Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority as notified in G.O.Ms.No.674 dated 29.12.2006 divides the main land use in 9 categories. In respect of residential use zone under category-I, dispensaries and nursing homes are permitted on its own. But on appeal to the Urban Development Authority, dispensaries/nursing homes/health centres (20 bed)/ hospitals not treating contiguous diseases or mental patients are permitted. Admittedly, the present constructions are in residential use zone only. The provisional No-objection Certificate issued by the Fire and Emergency Services Department indicates that the occupant load is mentioned as 20 in respect of ground floor and 40 in respect of ground, first, second, third and fourth floors. So, the occupancy of nearly 200 people in and more in a hospital is not permissible under the Zoning Regulations in respect of residential zone. Respondents 3 and 4 are running a Super Speciality Hospital. Admittedly there is no permission from the Urban Development Authority and permission for a hospital from the 2nd respondent alone is existing. 23. Thus, some constructions made by the respondents 3 and 4 are in violation of the sanctioned plan issued by the 2nd respondent and violating the Zoning Regulations. There is no final certificate from the Fire and Emergency Services Department. The major deviations appear to be construction of 5th and 6th floors (duplex), constructions in cellar with portions and absence of no objection certificate from the Fire Department due to construction of two floors above the permitted height covering all the road widening portion, running administrative office and conference hall in cellar parking area and running a super speciality hospital when only nursing home having less than 20 beds is permissible with permission of Urban Development Authority and there is no permission from the Urban Development Authority. RELIEF: 24. The record of this case shows that the respondents 3 and 4 changed three Counsel during their short journey in the case for reasons better known to them. They made constructions in deviation of sanctioned plan when the Petitioners have been objecting right from the beginning. RELIEF: 24. The record of this case shows that the respondents 3 and 4 changed three Counsel during their short journey in the case for reasons better known to them. They made constructions in deviation of sanctioned plan when the Petitioners have been objecting right from the beginning. The Corporation stood as a silent spectator except issuing a notice once under Sec.452 of GHMC Act, 1955. The nonchalant action of the respondents 3 and 4 in the face of constant vigilance of the neighbours is a matter of grave concern to this Court and this Court wonders whether the existing laws encourage such actions or defiance of law has become a rule in the society. The respondents 3 and 4 are respectable and educated persons in the society and society expects respect for law from them. The discretionary power of the Commissioner to regularise unauthorised constructions is meant to be exercised in cases of inevitability and where they do not infringe neighbours’ rights but not in cases of defiance. The authorities and courts exist to protect law and give relief to the aggrieved in appropriate cases. The Petitioners approached this Court in a helpless situation and by entertaining their grievance and granting relief to them, this court is not acting as ‘Police’ and is a total misunderstanding of the role of this court and showing disrespect. 25. In Calcutta Corporation V. Mulchand ( AIR 1956 SC 110 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta affirming the order of the Municipal Magistrate, whereby he dismissed an application filed by the appellant under Section 363 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1983, for demolition of certain constructions on the ground that they had been erected without the previous permission of the authorities and in contravention of the prescriptions laid down in the building rules. The observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while disposing of the case, are apposite. “13. The courts below were also influenced by the fact that there was no complaint from the neighbours about the erection of the building. The observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while disposing of the case, are apposite. “13. The courts below were also influenced by the fact that there was no complaint from the neighbours about the erection of the building. It must be remembered that the building rules are enacted generally for the benefit of the public, and where those rules have been violated and proceedings are taken for an order for demolition of the building under Section 363 what has to be decided is whether the breaches are of a formal or trivial character in which case the imposition of a fine might meet the requirements of the case, or whether they are serious and likely to affect adversely the interests of the public, in which case it would be proper to pass an order for demolition. Whether there has been a complaint from the public would not as such be material for deciding the question, though if there was one, it would be a piece of evidence in deciding whether the interests of the public have suffered by reason of the breaches. 14. The position, therefore, is that the orders of the courts below are based on mistakes and mis-directions, and cannot be supported. The conduct of the respondent in adopting a hide-and-seek attitude in completing the constructions in deliberate defiance of the law calls for severe action. It would be most unfortunate, and the interests of the public will greatly suffer, if the notion were to be encouraged that a person might with impunity break the building rules and put up a construction and get away with it on payment of fine.” 26. This Court in Saddi Narasimha Reddi V. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad ( 1981 (1) ALT 46 ), considered the case of construction in deviation of sanctioned plan and upheld the order of the Municipal Corporation directing demolition. In the said decision, this Court considered the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The learned Single Judge while considering the above observations, held as follows: “15. Building bye-laws in a Municipality belong to that category of inflexible and inexorable laws of house-building the observance of which cannot be waived normally either in prospect or retrospect by the municipal authorities. The prohibitions contained in these building bye-laws are prohibitions against a builder and for the benefit of the neighbourhood. Building bye-laws in a Municipality belong to that category of inflexible and inexorable laws of house-building the observance of which cannot be waived normally either in prospect or retrospect by the municipal authorities. The prohibitions contained in these building bye-laws are prohibitions against a builder and for the benefit of the neighbourhood. They cannot therefore be lifted by the Municipal Corporation. If Courts hold that even in such cases the municipal authorities cannot demolish, it would amount to authorising the municipal authorities to sanction departures of law which have injurious effects on the health and well-being of all those that are living in the neighbourhood. In other words, such a course of action would involve sanctioning inflicting of injury on third parties which could never have been contemplated by the statute. 27. In 3 ACES V. M.C.H. ( 1994 (3) ALT 73 (F.B.), a Full Bench of this Court considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1991 SC 1453 ) and extracted the following observations. “The rules, regulations and bye-laws are made by the Corporations or development authorities taking in view the larger public interest of the society and it is the bounden duty of the citizens to obey and follow such rues which are made for their own benefits.” 28. The Full Bench further held that where public interest is involved and it is found that there is violation of the provisions of the Act, Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws made by the Corporations or developmental authorities, it is permissible for the Court to take notice of the same and give effect to them. It further held that when an illegality is brought to the notice of the Court, particularly relating to public interest, the Court should take notice of it and apply to the case. (Vide Mohamoud and Ispahani (1921 (2) K.B. 716). 29. Chapter 12 of the GHMC Act deals with building regulations. Section 451 of the GHMC Act deals with the inspection of buildings in course of erection, alteration, etc. Section 452 empowers the Commissioner to issue a notice in case of constructions made contrary to the provisions of the GHMC Act. Section 454 gives power to the Commissioner for enforcement of provisions concerning buildings and works. Section 451 of the GHMC Act deals with the inspection of buildings in course of erection, alteration, etc. Section 452 empowers the Commissioner to issue a notice in case of constructions made contrary to the provisions of the GHMC Act. Section 454 gives power to the Commissioner for enforcement of provisions concerning buildings and works. These powers need not be exercised by the Commissioner himself personally and he can exercise the powers through his officers. The Supreme Court in Dr. G.N. KhajuriaV. Delhi Development Authority (1995) 5 SCC 762 ), took note of such situations and observed in that case as follows: “10. Before parting, we have an observation to make. The same is that a feeling is gathering ground that where unauthorised constructions are demolished on the force of the order of courts, the illegality is not taken care of fully inasmuch as the officers of the statutory body who had allowed the unauthorised construction to be made or make illegal allotments go scot free. This should not, however, have happen for two reasons. First, it is the illegal action/order of the officer which lies at the root of the unlawful act of the concerned citizen, because of which the officer is more to be blamed than the recipient of the illegal benefit. It is thus imperative, according to us, that while undoing the mischief which would require the demolition of the unauthorised construction, the delinquent officer has also to be punished in accordance with law. This, however, seldom happens. Secondly, to take care of the injustice completely, the officer who had misused his power has also to be properly punished. Otherwise, what happens is that the officer, who made the hay when the sun shined, retains the hay, which tempts other to do the same. This really gives fillip to the commission of tainted acts, whereas the aim should be opposite. 11. We, therefore, call upon respondent No.1 to make an enquiry and inform the Court within three months as to who are the officers who had made the unauthorised allotment and permitted unauthorised construction. On knowing about this, such further orders would be passed as deemed fit and proper.” 30. I may usefully refer the erudite observations of the learned single Judge of this court made in ‘Saddi Narasimha Reddy’ case: “20. On knowing about this, such further orders would be passed as deemed fit and proper.” 30. I may usefully refer the erudite observations of the learned single Judge of this court made in ‘Saddi Narasimha Reddy’ case: “20. Mr.Tej Rai Kapoor in the course of his argument has repeatedly stressed the fact that in upholding the order of demolition, I would be upholding the order of destruction of a building already constructed and that I should not sanction such a course of action. This is an argument based on unexpressed assumption of inviolability of the institution of ‘property’. Proudhon denounced “all property as theft”. Marx no doubt criticised this view as unscientific and as one coming out of Proudhon’s poverty of philosophy. Therefore is no doubt that possession and enjoyment of minimum of property is indispensable condition for a meaningful existence of a modern civilized life and therefore the institution of property should be adequately safeguarded. But we must note that there can be no property outside the legal and social framework. Any acquisition of property that a particular legal order does not sanction should receive neither legal recognition nor legal protection. It is this type of ‘property’ which can be truly called ‘theft’. Petitioner’s unauthorised constructions, in my opinion, belong to that category. No one in the name of ‘property’ should be allowed to endanger the rights of others. Such ‘property’ should not receive the same protection of legitimate property. This argument of Mr. Tej Rai Kapoor must therefore be rejected.” 31. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are allowed subject to directions hereunder. The respondents 3 and 4 made constructions with an undertaking on 06.05.2009 in WPMP.No.23360 of 2008 in W.P.No.17943 of 2008 given to this court that their constructions would be subject to the result of the writ petition and they would not claim equities, while taking time to file counter-affidavit. The respondents 3 and 4 made constructions with an undertaking on 06.05.2009 in WPMP.No.23360 of 2008 in W.P.No.17943 of 2008 given to this court that their constructions would be subject to the result of the writ petition and they would not claim equities, while taking time to file counter-affidavit. In view of the violations and taking into consideration the undertaking given by the respondents 3 and 4 to this court, they are given one month time to bring the constructions made by them in consonance with the building permission obtained by them in the presence of the officers of the 2nd respondent and comply other statutory requirements, failing which the 2nd respondent is directed to demolish the deviated constructions in order to bring the constructions within the sanctioned permission without any further notice to them and take action with respect to other statutory requirements and report compliance to the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court within two months thereafter. 32. These writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.