JUDGMENT : V.M. Pancholi, J. 1. This writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner espousing the public cause in which it has been prayed that the respondents authorities be directed to take stringent action against the respondent No. 8 and 9 for carrying out unauthorized construction and the respondent authorities be directed to demolish the construction already made and further prayed that the respondents be directed not to grant any B.U. permission without complete compliance of the requisite rules by the respondent No. 8. 2. The petitioner who is a public spirited citizen has preferred this public interest litigation wherein he has stated that he is a social worker and ex-municipal councilor in Dhoraji Nagarpalika. He has preferred various public interest litigations before this Court for various purposes. It is the case of the petitioner that one Shri Teli Zubedabai Haji Habibhai sought permission to demolish old construction on the land of city survey No. 711 paiki on 9.7.2013. The respondent No. 8 thereafter purchased the land of city survey No. 711 paiki admeasuring 926 sq.mtrs. by registered sale deed from one Aabid Umar Kunda on 12.8.2013. Thereafter, the present respondent No. 8 applied for development permission vide application dated 11.12.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that the meeting of the Town Planning Committee of respondent Nagar Palika was held on 11.11.2014 and in the said meeting, resolution was passed with regard to the application of respondent No. 8 that as the open area of ground floor was to be kept 50% open and as the margin of 6.00 on all sides was to be kept and the parking was to be kept as per the rules and as details of fire safety in the said section is not shown, the development permission sought by respondent No. 8 is rejected and the same is filed. Respondent No. 8 was also informed about the said decision vide communication dated 10.3.2015 and by the said communication, it was also conveyed to respondent No. 8 not to put any further construction. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of refusal of the permission by the respondent Nagar Palika, respondent No. 8 has started construction and practically completed the same. In spite of that, no action is taken by the officers of the respondent-Nagar Palika. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of refusal of the permission by the respondent Nagar Palika, respondent No. 8 has started construction and practically completed the same. In spite of that, no action is taken by the officers of the respondent-Nagar Palika. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred the present petition. By way of an amendment, the petitioner has impleaded respondent No. 9 as party respondent in the present proceedings which has carried out the construction in the land in question. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Brijesh Trivedi for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Devnani for respondent No. 1, learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for respondent No. 6, Mr. D.A. Sankhesara for respondent No. 8 and Mr. S.P. Majmudar for respondent No. 9. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi appearing for the petitioner referred to the various documents annexed with the petition and submitted that after the permission was sought by Shri Teli Zebedabibi Haji Habibbhai for demolition of old construction on the land bearing city survey No. 711 paiki, respondent No. 8 purchased the said land admeasuring 926 sq.mtrs. by registered sale deed and respondent No. 8 applied for the development permission on 11.12.2013. Learned advocate thereafter referred to the resolution passed by the respondent Nagar Palika in the meeting held on 11.11.2014 and submitted that the respondent Nagar Palika rejected the permission sought by respondent No. 8 on the grounds stated in the said resolution. The said resolution is produced at page number 81 of the compilation. He thereafter referred to the document produced at page 82 i.e. communication dated 10.3.2015 whereby respondent Nagar Palika informed the respondent No. 8 that the development permission asked for by the respondent No. 8 has been rejected and thereafter was instructed not to carry out any further construction. Learned advocate Mr. Trivedi thereafter referred to the photographs produced at page 83 to 86 of the compilation and submitted that in spite of the direction given by the officer of the respondent Nagar Palika to the respondent No. 8, respondent No. 8 has carried out the construction and the construction is almost completed. In spite of that, the officers of the respondent Nagar Palika has not taken any action against the respondent No. 8. At this stage, it is pointed out by learned advocate Mr. In spite of that, the officers of the respondent Nagar Palika has not taken any action against the respondent No. 8. At this stage, it is pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Trivedi that respondent No. 9 has carried out the construction for the purpose of hospital and for the said purpose, name of respondent No. 8 is used and therefore respondent No. 9 is also joined as party respondent in the present proceedings. The petitioner has received the aforesaid information and therefore immediately filed the present petition. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the construction which is carried out is totally unauthorized and therefore the same cannot be regularized. Hence, the respondent Nagar Palika be directed to demolish the unauthorized construction so far as it does not comply with the necessary requirement of the applicable rules. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Trivedi has referred to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Application No. 8455 of 2012 in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 137 of 2011, wherein the Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court made certain observations with regard to the illegal construction. However, learned advocate for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court is under challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar appearing for the contesting respondent -respondent No. 9 has mainly submitted that respondent No. 9 is a trust which had taken the land admeasuring 926.10 sq.mtrs. of city survey No. 711 paiki of Dhoraji town vide oral gift from the original owner i.e. respondent No. 8 herein on 8.10.2013 and respondent No. 9 Trust has started construction of hospital. Mr. Majmudar has pointed out that the respondent No. 8 submitted an application on 11.12.2013 before the respondent Nagar Palika for the purpose of granting permission of construction. Respondent Nagar Palika thereafter issued the notice on 17.12.2013 to respondent No. 8 wherein it has been stated that there are three defects which are required to be cured before granting the construction permission. It is submitted by learned advocate that the said defects were cured and relevant documents were provided to the competent authority of respondent Nagar Palika. Even the fees for construction permission was also deposited. It is submitted by learned advocate that the said defects were cured and relevant documents were provided to the competent authority of respondent Nagar Palika. Even the fees for construction permission was also deposited. However, thereafter no decision was conveyed to respondent No. 8 or 9 with regard to the rejection of the construction permission in connection with the application dated 11.12.2013. 7. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has placed reliance upon the provision contained in Section 29(4) of Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 which reads as under: "29. Grant or refusal of permission: (1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) xxxx (4) If the appropriate authority fails to communicate its order to the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of the application, such permission shall be deemed to have been granted to the applicant on the expiry of the said period of three months. (5) xxxx (6) xxxx" 8. Learned advocate thereafter submitted that when no decision was communicated to the respondent No. 8 within the stipulated time limit, the permission asked for was deemed to have been granted to the respondent No. 8 and therefore the construction was started at the place in question. It is further contended that the respondent Nagar Palika has passed the resolution dated 11.11.2014 i.e. after a period of more than 11 months from the date of the application whereby it was informed to respondent No. 8 that he has not kept certain margin and not kept certain space open and also as there is no mention with regard to the fire safety, development permission asked for by the respondent No. 8 is rejected. It is contended at this stage that such resolution was passed without hearing affected parties and after expiry of the stipulated period. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar thereafter fairly submitted that by communication dated 10.3.2015, respondent Nagar Palika informed respondent No. 8 that the development permission is rejected and therefore henceforth, no further construction be made. However, till the time most of the construction was already completed, Nagar Palika has not taken any objection and has not communicated the said resolution and thereafter the present petition has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2016 at a belated stage. However, till the time most of the construction was already completed, Nagar Palika has not taken any objection and has not communicated the said resolution and thereafter the present petition has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2016 at a belated stage. Learned advocate thereafter submitted that no public interest is involved in the present matter as the land in question is a private land and is not a government land. He, therefore, requested that the present petition be dismissed. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar thereafter submitted that now the registered gift deed is executed on 24.2.2016 by respondent No. 8 in favour of respondent No. 9 trust. Construction of the hospital on the land in question is almost over. Respondent No. 9 has purchased the equipments and required material for running the hospital. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submission, learned advocate Mr. Majmudar submitted that in fact the respondent No. 9 has prepared the revised construction plan as per the prevalent General Development Control Regulation ('GDCR' for short), as per the present construction but the respondent No. 9 has not submitted the same to the respondent Nagar Palika because of the pendency of the present petition. However, respondent No. 9 is ready and willing to submit the revised plan before the respondent Nagar Palika within reasonable time. It is further submitted that the respondent Nagar Palika be directed to consider the revised plan as and when the same is submitted as per the provision contained in GDCR and if the respondent Nagar Palika finds certain part as required to be removed/demolished, respondent No. 9 is ready and willing to demolish such portion of the building. However, the entire building cannot be demolished. He, therefore, submitted that the present petition be dismissed. Learned advocate Mr. Majmudar has placed reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shivnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., reported in 2006(2) GLH 444 wherein learned Single Judge has observed in paragraph 9.1 as under: "9.1 It can thus be seen that order of demolition of the construction already put up is one of the options available with the Chief Officer to be exercised upon conviction being obtained. The terminology used by the Legislature is that the Chief Officer may by written notice require such construction, alteration, addition or reconstruction to be altered or demolished. The terminology used by the Legislature is that the Chief Officer may by written notice require such construction, alteration, addition or reconstruction to be altered or demolished. The use of word "may" and indication of choice to require either alteration or demolition of the construction makes it amply clear that whenever construction is found to be offending any of the provisions contained in section 155 of the said Act, demolition thereof is not the only choice that can be exercised by the Chief Officer. The demolition may be ordered in a given case particularly when it is found that construction breaches any of the provisions of the said Act or the by-laws for the time being in force. In a given case, construction may be ordered to be altered to bring in tune with the provisions of the said Act and by-laws made thereunder. Sub-section(8) of the section 155 though applies in somewhat different situation, the same further highlights the intention of the Legislature in this regard. Sub-section(8) of section 155 empowers the Chief Officer to inspect any work without giving notice of his intention to do so; of which notice is required by sub-section(1). The Chief Officer may during the execution of any such work by written notice require the person executing such work to cause anything done contrary to any such provision or bye-law or order to do anything which by any such provision or bye-law or order, is required to do but which he has omitted. Here the group of words "of which notice is required by sub-section (1)", is significant. The legislature has advisedly not used the words "of which notice is given under sub-section(1)". The power of the Chief Officer is kept wide enough to inspect any work of which notice is required by sub-section(1) to be given whether such notice has been given or not. Meaning thereby in case of an on going execution of any construction work, notice of which is otherwise required to be given under sub-section (1) of section 155, but not so given, the Chief Officer may inspect such work without any notice and may by an order require the person executing such work to bring the same in tune with the provisions contained in the said Act and by-laws made thereunder. In essence, it means that when any work is being executed without a notice under sub-section(1) of section 155, during the currency of such execution, the Chief Officer would have the power to inspect the site, put a halt to such continuation of illegal construction and to direct that person executing such work brings the same in tune with legal provisions. Thus in any such work which is in execution, such corrective measures can be taken by the Chief Officer, it would be an extremely rigid and impermissible interpretation of sub-section(7) of section 155, to construe that once the work is completed, the only choice available with the officer would be that of demolition. In a given case, construction, alteration, addition or reconstruction carried out by a citizen may not be offending any of the legal requirements under the said Act or the bylaws made thereunder for the time being in force except that such construction, alteration, addition or reconstruction as the case may be was carried out without a prior notice to the Chief Officer as required under sub-section(1) of section 155. Surely it is not the intention of the legislature to pull down such construction insisting that the property holder gives a fresh notice and carry out the very same construction once the Chief Officer approves the plans. This is however, not meant to convey that construction should be carried out without notice or approval or that such tendency should be encouraged. At all costs, such tendency deserves to be deprecated and discouraged. However, in every single case of default, demolition is not necessarily the only cure. Collection of fine as provided under sub-section (7) of section 155 can be one mode of ensuring compliance of the provisions of the said Section and to discourage such breach of legal requirements. Keeping due vigil and ordering stoppage of construction at an early stage which construction is not with proper permission would also prevent number of complications. It is however, not meant to suggest for a moment that construction which does not confirm to the provision of the said Act and the bye-laws in force should be regularised. Discretionary powers of the Chief Officer would not authorise him to ignore breach of legal requirements. It is however, not meant to suggest for a moment that construction which does not confirm to the provision of the said Act and the bye-laws in force should be regularised. Discretionary powers of the Chief Officer would not authorise him to ignore breach of legal requirements. It is only when the construction already put up otherwise confirms to all legal requirements or can be brought in conformity with the same with suitable modifications that exercise of such powers can be justified." 10. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi appearing for the respondent Nagar Palika submitted that the Nagar Palika has passed the resolution whereby it was informed to the respondent No. 8 that the application for development permission has been rejected and thereafter in March, 2015 the respondent Nagar Palika once again informed the respondent No. 8 that the development permission asked for by him has been rejected and therefore the respondent No. 8 shall not carry out any further construction. In spite of that, the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 have carried out the construction on the land in question. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi, however, submitted that there is a provision for submitting revised plan before the Nagar Palika and as and when such revised plan is received from the respondent No. 9, the respondent Nagar Palika will examine the same and will take appropriate decision in accordance with law. He, therefore, submitted that the present petition be disposed off with suitable direction. 11. We have considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have also gone through the material produced on record. It is revealed from the record that the respondent No. 8 had submitted an application for grant of development permission on 11.12.2013 to the respondent Nagar Palika. Respondent Nagar Palika asked respondent No. 8 to cure certain defects and according to respondent No. 9, the said defects were cured immediately. Necessary fees for development permission was also deposited by respondent No. 8. However, it is not in dispute that the respondent Nagar Palika passed a resolution on 11.11.2014 whereby it was resolved to reject the development permission sought by respondent No. 8 on certain grounds. Thereafter, on 10.3.2015, the respondent Nagar Palika informed the respondent No. 8 that development permission is rejected and therefore no further construction may be carried out. However, it is not in dispute that the respondent Nagar Palika passed a resolution on 11.11.2014 whereby it was resolved to reject the development permission sought by respondent No. 8 on certain grounds. Thereafter, on 10.3.2015, the respondent Nagar Palika informed the respondent No. 8 that development permission is rejected and therefore no further construction may be carried out. It is the case of the respondent No. 9 that till such decision was communicated by respondent Nagar Palika, most of the construction of the hospital at the place in question was completed. Even the petitioner has also admitted in the petition that the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 have completed the construction at the place in question though development permission was refused. Thus, fact remains that the construction of the hospital at the place in question is almost completed. Learned advocate for the respondent No. 9 has, during the course of submissions, shown willingness to submit the revised plan before the Nagar Palika as per the GDCR. 12. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondent No. 9 is hereby permitted to submit revised plan within a period of three days from the date of receipt of this order before the respondent Nagar Palika. As and when such revised plan is received by the respondent Nagar Palika from the respondent No. 9, Nagar Palika shall examine the same and take appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. If the respondent Nagar Palika is of the opinion that certain portion of the construction is not permissible as per the provisions contained in the rules and regulations including GDCR, it is open for respondent Nagar Palika to give appropriate direction to respondent Nos. 8 and 9 and/or to take action in accordance with law. With this observation and direction this petition is disposed off. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.