JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 25.02.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Shimla whereby he affirmed the order dated 26.12.2015 passed by learned Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla in proceedings initiated by the petitioners under Section 242 read with Section 253 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (for short ‘Act’). 2. The facts, in brief, leading to filing of the instant petition are that the petitioners filed an application under Section 253 of the Act before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla (respondent No.1) against the respondent No.2 Shyam Lal that he had started the construction of his house building at Sandal (Chakkar) without approval and authorization of the competent authority and the same was otherwise carried out in contravention of the relevant building byelaws. It was also averred that the officials of the Municipal Corporation were ignoring the violation regarding set-back, raising of construction on the common path and encroachment being made by him over the State/ Municipal Corporation land. Lastly, it was averred that respondent No.2 had deliberately concealed one floor/storey of the house building. 3. In reply filed by respondent No.2, it was submitted that the petitioners had no locus standi to file the application and rather they themselves were guilty of violation of Section 246 of the Act. It was further submitted that the construction raised by him was strictly in accordance with the approved sanctioned plan and this was so found by the Senior Architect Planner/Junior Engineer when they visited the spot and found that there was no kind of deviation there from. 4. On directions of respondent No.1, Architect Planner/Junior Engineer visited the spot and submitted the report wherein it was categorically mentioned that the construction being carried out by respondent No.2 was strictly in accordance with the approved plan and accordingly the application filed by the petitioners herein was ordered to be dismissed by respondent No.1. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-I), Shimla, who too, dismissed the appeal, constraining the petitioners to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court and praying therein for quashing and setting aside the orders so passed by the two authorities below. 5. Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.1, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-I), Shimla, who too, dismissed the appeal, constraining the petitioners to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court and praying therein for quashing and setting aside the orders so passed by the two authorities below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record carefully. 6. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the findings recorded by both the authorities below are perverse and, therefore, deserve to be set-aside. While on the other hand, respondent No.2 would not only support the impugned orders passed by the authorities below but would claim that the same require no interference especially when this Court is exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution. 7. Before adverting to the relative merits of the case, it would be apposite to delineate the scope and ambit of the powers to be exercised by the Commissioner while exercising jurisdiction under Section 253 of the Act. These have been meticulously articulated by a co-ordinate Bench (Justice Sanjay Karol, J.) of this Court in Municipal Corporation, Shimla vs. Savitri Devi, 2016 (1) Him.L.R. 678 and following principles are clearly discernible there from: (i) It cannot be said that in exercise of his power under Section 253 of the Act, Commissioner is functioning as a Court. (Para-23). (ii) The office of the Commissioner does not fall within the definition of a Court and neither the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, nor the Evidence Act are made specifically applicable to the proceedings before the Commissioner. Hence it is only the material placed by the parties, based on the principles of preponderance of probability, which is required to be considered and appreciated. (Para-29). (iii) The power exercised by the Commissioner are quasi judicial and not administrative/ ministerial. (Para-39). (iv) The Commissioner is bound to comply with the principles of natural justice, not only by the mandate of the statute but also by the very nature of functions, which he is required to discharge. Rule of audi alteram partem is squarely applicable. His actions have to be reasonable, just, fair, impartial, reasoned, logical and honest. However, the extent of applicability of principles of natural justice would be dependent upon given fact situation of each case. (Para-59). Rule of audi alteram partem is squarely applicable. His actions have to be reasonable, just, fair, impartial, reasoned, logical and honest. However, the extent of applicability of principles of natural justice would be dependent upon given fact situation of each case. (Para-59). (v) In the proceedings conducted by the Commissioner, it is not a matter of rule that a party has a right of cross-examining a party or adducing evidence. Examination of a witness must precede cross-examination. Prejudice caused as a result of failure thereof, is imperatively required, to be shown by the agitating party. The Oaths Act, 1969 is also not applicable in such proceedings and hence there is no question of examining the J.E. or A.P., who has submitted his report on the basis of spot inspection. The decision of the Commissioner has to be on the basis of material so placed on record by the parties. (Para-69). (vi) Reasonable opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded to the parties, which only means hearing which is fair. Party must have known the issue, material relied upon and opportunity to present their case. In effect principles of audi alteram partem need to be complied with, with equal vigour. (Para-74). 8. Adverting to the merits of the case, it would be noticed that on receiving the complaint from the petitioners, the Commissioner issued a notice to respondent No. 2 and then Sr. A.P./J.E. were directed to visit the spot and report about the factual position. In the report so submitted, it was pointed out that the respondent No. 2 was carrying on construction of 4th floor by erecting RCC columns and the same was being carried out as per the approved sanction plan/drawings. 9. As regards, the allegation of encroachment over the government land, the same was obviously not within the competence or jurisdiction of respondent No.1 and rightly therefore, the petitioners were left to pursue their remedy elsewhere. 10. Insofar as the structural stability is concerned, the respondent No.1 directed the Senior Architect Planner to ask the respondent No.2 to submit structural stability report/certificate from the qualified structural engineer. Since the construction was being carried out only at the 4th floor, therefore, the issue of encroachment on the adjoining land did not fall for consideration and therefore rightly rejected by respondent No.1. 11. Since the construction was being carried out only at the 4th floor, therefore, the issue of encroachment on the adjoining land did not fall for consideration and therefore rightly rejected by respondent No.1. 11. The petitioners for some strange reasons have not appended along with the petition the grounds of appeal preferred before the Additional District Judge, Shimla. However, it can be discernible from the order passed by him that those very points which agitated before respondent No.1 were again raised in the appeal and the same were answered in the following manner: “12. It is admitted proposition that boundary of the land of present appellant is adjacent to the land of respondent No.2 Shyam Lal. It is also admitted proposition that both the parties have raised construction over their own land. 13. The first allegation of the present appellants against respondent No.2 is that respondent has started construction of his house without approval and authorization from the competent authority. The said allegation is not supported and corroborated by any other convincing evidence on the case file. It is clearly mentioned in impugned order in para No.13, that respondent Shyam Lal is carrying construction of 4th floor in the form of RCC columns. Measurement of the building in question were taken and it was observed that construction is being carried out as per the drawings approved vide order No. 318/Secy/03/38/3741, dated 02.12.2003. 14. The drawing of the house of respondent No.2 Shyam Lal has duly been approved, wherein, he was allowed to raise construction of 4th floor plus attic. 15. There is also specifically mentioned in the report of Sr. AP/JE that construction is being raised by the respondent No.2 Shyam Lal as per approved construction plan. 16. The appellants have placed on record one photocopy of the show cause notice issued to Shyam Lal by SADA regarding unauthorized development violation of the permission, approval and sanction vide order No. 318/Secy/03/38/3741, dated 02.12.2003. Entire facts and circumstances of the case shows that the notice of SADA dated 28.01.2004 also reflects that the house sanctioned plan is already sanctioned in favour of respondent Shyam Lal. The said letter has no help to the case of appellants, especially, when it is brought to the notice of this Court that deviation pertaining to construction of second storey has already been compounded and the matter has already been settled. 17. The report of Sr. The said letter has no help to the case of appellants, especially, when it is brought to the notice of this Court that deviation pertaining to construction of second storey has already been compounded and the matter has already been settled. 17. The report of Sr. AP/JE shows that no any violation was found in the construction of fourth floor of the house of respondent No.2 Shyam Lal. Hence, there is no other evidence on the case file to show that construction is being carried out by respondent Shyam Lal contrary to the sanctioned plan. By way of filing the present appeal, the present appellants cannot be allowed to challenge the sanctioned plan of the house of respondent No.2 Shyam Lal. The present appellants are at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law to the said aspect of the case. 18. There is also no evidence on the case file to show that respondent No.2 Shyam Lal has made encroachment over common path and land of State/M.C. At present, respondent No.2 Shyam Lal is raising construction of the fourth floor, hence, question of demarcation does not arise. Commissioner, M.C. Shimla cannot decide the encroachment case, hence the appointment of local commissioner serves no purpose. 19. Further contention of the present appellants is that respondent No.2 has deliberately concealed one storey of the building, whereas, the contention of respondent No.2 is that he has already closed entire basement portion by way of raising wall and said converted area has already been constructed and sanctioned as basement of the house as per approved plan of the house of respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that respondent has closed the basement portion and will not open in future. Since the basement portion has already been closed by way of raising wall, hence the said portion is at present deemed to be closed area. The said factual position existing on spot has also not disputed by respondent No.1 M.C., Shimla. 20. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order suffers no infirmity and as such, point is decided in negative. FINAL ORDER: 21. In the light of my aforesaid discussion under Point No.1, the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.” 12. 20. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the impugned order suffers no infirmity and as such, point is decided in negative. FINAL ORDER: 21. In the light of my aforesaid discussion under Point No.1, the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.” 12. Aggrieved by the orders passed by both the authorities below, the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying therein for the following substantive reliefs: (i) The impugned order dated 25.2.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional District Judge-1, Shimla in CMA No. 17-S/14 of 2015 titled Rakesh Mehta & another vs. M.C. Shimla and another and order dated 26.12.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla in Case No. 2592/AP/2015 titled Rakesh Mehta vs. M.C. Shimla and other be set aside and quashed and the Commissioner M.C. Shimla be ordered and directed to have the entire illegal construction carried out by respondent No.2 in his building known as Sri Ram Niketen Building, Sandal Chakkar, Shimla-5 which is contrary to construction Bye-laws of M.C. Shimla demolished in accordance with the provision of Municipal Corporation Act; (ii) The sanction of building plan Annexure P-7 pertaining to the building of respondent No.2 granted vide order No. 318/Secy/03/38/3741 dated 2.12.2003 by Nagar Panchayat Tutu, Shimla predecessor of respondent M.C. Shimla be cancelled and quashed; (iii) The construction being carried out by the respondent be stayed and stopped; (iv) The entire records of sanction of building plan by Nagar Panchayat and Municipal Corporation and original sanctioned plans Annexure P-4, P-5 and P-7 be called along with proceedings held under Section 253 of H.P. Municipal Corporation Act by Commissioner, M.C. Shimla be called for and examined and appropriate order and direction as deemed fit be passed.” 13. It would be evident from the record that both the authorities below have concurrently held as follows: (i) The construction being carried out by respondent No.2 in the 4th floor is as per the drawings approved by respondent No.1 and this is corroborated by the Sr. A.P/J.E. in their reports submitted to respondent No.1. (ii) There was no evidence to show that respondent No.2 had made encroachments over the common path and land of State/M.C. (iii) The respondent No.2 had already closed his basement and undertaken not to open the same in future. A.P/J.E. in their reports submitted to respondent No.1. (ii) There was no evidence to show that respondent No.2 had made encroachments over the common path and land of State/M.C. (iii) The respondent No.2 had already closed his basement and undertaken not to open the same in future. In addition to that, it was also found that the petitioners could not in proceedings initiated under Section 253 challenge the approved plans of respondent No.2 and furthermore, the respondent No.1 was also not competent to decide the cases of encroachments, if any. 14. It is well-settled that the High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact of an appropriate authority only if there is no evidence to justify such a conclusion and if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the authorities below have come or in other words a finding which was perverse in law. On the other hand, if there is evidence on record on which a finding can be arrived at and if the authority below has not misdirected itself either on law or on fact, then in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court should refrain from interfering with such findings made by the appropriate authorities. 15. This proposition is well settled by the Hon’ble Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Warryam Singh Vs. Amarnath, AIR 1954 SC 215 , wherein it was held: "...power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. v. Sukumar Mukherjee, AIR 1951 Cal 193 (S.B.) to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors." 16. This statement of law was thereafter approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagendra Nath Bora v. The Commr. Of Hills Division, AIR 1958 SC 398 and it was held: “It is thus, clear that the powers of judicial interference under Art. 227 of the Constitution with orders of judicial or quasi-judicial nature, are not greater than the power under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Under Art. 226 the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Under Art. 226 the power of interference may extend to quashing an impugned order on the ground of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. But under Art. 227 of the Constitution the power of interference is limited to seeing that the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority." 17. Judged in light of the aforesaid exposition of law, no case for interference is made out as the findings rendered by both the authorities below are pure findings of fact, which in no manner can be said to be perverse, so as to call for interference in these proceedings. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. Interim order dated 01.04.2016 is vacated.