ORDER : 1. Challenge is thrown to Order dated 10.12.2012, passed by J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu (for short “Tribunal”) allowing Appeal preferred by respondent No. 1, and setting aside Demolition Notice No. MJ/CEO/24/3/2012 dated 03.01.2012, issued under Section 7(3) of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988 (briefly hereinafter “Act of 1988”). 2. Succinctly put by petitioner, i.e. Building Operation Controlling Authority Municipal Area, Jammu (for brevity BOCA) approval, vide Order dated 08.12.2009, was granted in favour of respondent No. 1, to construct residential building. The construction is said to have been carried in violation of approval/sanction, therefore, BOCA issued Notice No. 24/CEO/1/2011 dated 02.11.2011 under Section 7(1) of the Act of 1988, to respondent No. 1, to show cause as to why khilafwarzi/violation should not be demolished. Another Notice No. MJ/CEO/24/3/2012 dated 03.01.2012 was issued by Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jammu, under Section 7(3) of the Act of 1988, asking respondent No. 1, to demolish the construction/violation detailed therein. Respondent No. 1 preferred Appeal against Notice No. MJ/CEO/24/3/2012 dated 03.01.2012, before learned Tribunal - respondent No. 2 herein, primarily on the ground that with commencement of Municipal Corporation Act, 2000 (for short “MC Act”) the Act of 1988 stands repealed and, therefore, notice under aforesaid repealed Act could not have been issued. It was further urged that even otherwise Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jammu, was not authorized to issue Notice under Section 7(3) under repealed Act, inasmuch as the Notification issued under Section 16 by the authority, whereby powers were delegated, did not authorize Joint Commissioner to issue Notice under Section 7(3) of the Act of 1988. Further averment was that the notice of demolition dated 03.01.2012 was factually incorrect and was a result of sheer non-application of mind, for, Notice of demolition dated 03.01.2012 indicated that Show Cause Notice under Section 7(1), Vide No. MJ/CEO/24/3/2012 dated 21.11.2011, was issued, asking respondent No. 1 to show cause as to why deviation/violation should not be demolished, whereas no such notice was ever issued to respondent No. 1 on 21.11.2011, whereby and whereunder respondent No. 1 was asked to show cause. 3. Petitioner filed its response/objections before the Tribunal in opposition to the Appeal preferred by respondent No. 1. 3. Petitioner filed its response/objections before the Tribunal in opposition to the Appeal preferred by respondent No. 1. Learned Tribunal is stated to have, without touching the issue of implied repeal of Control of Building Operation Act, 1988, as also the issue of competence of Joint Commissioner to issue notice, decided the appeal vide impugned order dated 10.12.2012 only on the ground that wrong mention of show cause notice dated 21.11.2011 in the demolition notice was a serious lapse, as no such notice was ever issued by petitioner BOCA to respondent No. 1 and that it was further observed that petitioner BOCA failed to satisfy learned Tribunal that when show-cause notice stood issued on 02.11.2011, indicating therein that the work had already commenced in violation of the sanction, then why final notice was issued after a period of two months and accordingly, notice of demolition dated 03.01.2012 was set aside. It is this order of which petitioner BOCA is aggrieved and knocks at portals of this Court with writ petition on hand. 4. Respondent No. 1 has fervently resisted writ petition. In her reply respondent No. 1 maintains that Act of 1988 does not exist at all inasmuch as the Act of 1988 has been repealed on coming into being of J&K Municipal Corporation Act, 2000 (for brevity “Act of 2000”). The Act of 2000, as maintained by respondent No. 1, is a later Act, comprising a complete Chapter, i.e. Chapter XIV containing statutory provision for Building Regulations, which is more elaborate and comprehensive as compared to the Act of 1988 and that apart Building Operation Controlling Authority, which was constituted by the Government under Section 3 of the Act of 1988, was constituted for Municipal Area, Jammu, which is no more a Municipal Area, after coming into force of Act of 2000 inasmuch as the Municipal Areas of both the cities, i.e. Jammu and Srinagar, have been declared as Municipal Corporations and there is no Municipal Area in Jammu Municipal Corporation and no Building Operation Controlling Authority has been constituted for Jammu Municipal Corporation. Even otherwise the Authority, which was constituted under the Act of 1988, the Administrators of the Municipality was the Chairman of the Building Operation of Controlling Authority and the Municipal Commissioner of Jammu Municipal Corporation was not its Chairman, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. Even otherwise the Authority, which was constituted under the Act of 1988, the Administrators of the Municipality was the Chairman of the Building Operation of Controlling Authority and the Municipal Commissioner of Jammu Municipal Corporation was not its Chairman, as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is insisted that the order passed by the Chairman, J&K Special Tribunal, impugned herein, is strictly in accordance with law and that no construction was ever compounded by the learned Tribunal as has been stated by petitioner BOCA. It is averred by respondent No. 1 that respondent did not deviate from the sanction plan or committed any violation much less a major violation. Respondent No. 1 claims in her reply that in and around the premises of respondent all the constructions raised in the entire locality are major violation of the Rules and Regulations and no notice is taken by petitioner BOCA, in that regard, but it is denied that any notice either under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or under Section 12(1) was ever served upon respondent or affixed at any conspicuous place of premises, where respondent had undertaken the construction. Respondent No. 1 also continue to say that Regulation 11 of the Act of 1988 does not hold the field after enactment of the Act of 2000. Notice under Section 7(1) is avowed to have never been served upon respondent No. 1. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner BOCA, to bolster the case set up by petitioner BOCA, in writ petition on hand, has stated that Municipal Corporation can still exercise power under Act of 1988 because it is a special legislation, enacted for the purpose of controlling the building operation in any local area, municipal area or town area and that there is no specific repeal by the Act of 2000, which would have repealed the Act of 1988. He also submits that Act of 1988 is applicable in present case as well and the permission order in this case to raise construction has been issued under the Act of 1988 and the construction raised by respondent No. 1 is according to Act of 1988, and, therefore, action is required to be taken under the Act of 1988. He also submits that Act of 1988 is applicable in present case as well and the permission order in this case to raise construction has been issued under the Act of 1988 and the construction raised by respondent No. 1 is according to Act of 1988, and, therefore, action is required to be taken under the Act of 1988. The main thrust of argument of learned counsel for petitioner BOCA is based on interpretation of Section 3(2)(a) of the Act of 1988 and authority can only exercise powers in the area, notified under J&K Municipal Act, Samvat 2008, since the J&K Municipal Act, Samvat 2008, is repealed and the authority, now, cannot exercise any power and petitioner BOCA may not be correct in saying so because the Municipal Act, Samvat 2008, was repealed by Municipal Corporation Act, 2000. Section 416 of the Act of 2000, to the saying of learned counsel, may be helpful in constructing the provision of Section 3(2)(a) of Act of 1988 as Section 416 of Act of 2000 clearly establishes that the reference if any comes with regard to jurisdiction of the local authority in the Municipal Area, the same shall be constructed as reference to the Corporation and cogent reading of Section 3(2)(a) of Act of 1988 and Section 416 of Act of 2000, the word “Municipal Act 2008” is to be constructed as “Municipal Corporation Act 2000.” Learned counsel for petitioner BOCA next urges that Section 3 of Act of 2000 very specifically says that Municipal Areas of Jammu and Srinagar shall within the limit of Municipal Corporation of Jammu and Srinagar. After coming into force of Act of 2000, the Government, as exhorted by learned counsel for petitioner BOCA, has changed the constitution of authority by issuing SRO 211 dated 27th June 2003 and that earlier the Chairman of the authority was Administrator of the Municipality and after amendment respective Commissioners, which includes Joint Commissioner explained in Para 12 of each Corporation are made Chairman. The repealing clause of Act of 2000 saves the action of the authority being consistent to the provisions of the Act. 7. The repealing clause of Act of 2000 saves the action of the authority being consistent to the provisions of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has, in contrast, submitted that writ petition is otherwise not maintainable inasmuch as it has been filed by Building Operation Controlling Authority through Municipal Commissioner and there is no authority in the name of Commissioner in Control of Building Operation Act, 1988, and even otherwise a juristic person has to sue through a natural person. He argues that the issuance of show-cause notice is sine qua non for issuance of final notice of demolition under section 7(3) of the Act of 1988 and no show cause notice was ever issued or received by respondent No. 1 on 21.11.2011, therefore, wrong mentioning of show cause notice in the Final Notice was not only an irregularity but was an illegality as well, which goes to the root of the cause. 8. The Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operations Act, 1998, was enacted by the Jammu and Kashmir State Legislature in the Thirty-Ninth Year of the Republic of India, with aim and object of amending and consolidating the law relating to control of building operations in the State. Section 3 of Act of 1988 says qua constitution of the Authority. With the commencement of Act of 1988, the Authority, for the purpose of the Act in any local area, municipal area, town area, notified area or area notified under the Jammu and Kashmir State Town Planning Act, 1953, was the Authority in respect of ‘Municipal Area’ notified under the J&K Municipal Act, Samvat 2008 ‘Local Area’ not included in the Municipal area ‘Town Area’ specified under Section 283 of the J&K Municipal Act, Samvat 2008 and area notified under the J&K Town Planning Act, 1963, which was not a local area, town area or notified area, was to be appointed by the Government from time to time by notifying in the Government Gazette. Section 4 of the Act of 1988 provides that no person shall undertake or carry out development of any site in any municipal area, local area, town area, notified area or area notified under the J&K State Town Planning Act, 1963, or erect or re-erect any building or make or extend any excavation or lay out any means of access to a road in such area except with previous permission of the Authority concerned in writing. For obtaining permission, application therefor is required to be made in writing to the Authority or through any agency authorised, in such form and containing such information as may be prescribed by the Regulations made under the Act of 1988. The Authority, in terms of Section 5 of Act of 1988, is required, within a period of seven days of the receipt of application, either to decline to accept a Plan as sufficient for granting sanction under Act of 1988, if it does not bear signature and seal of a Registered Architect or a Draftsman registered with the Authority, or after making such enquiry as it considers necessary, keeping in view the area and laws, rules and regulations applicable therein, by an order in writing, either grant permission, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order or refuse to grant such permission, under the State Town Planning Act, 1963, or any Master Plan and where permission is refused to be granted, grounds of such refusal is required to be communicated to applicant in writing within a period of thirty days. Section 6 of Act of 1988 envisages that the Authority may authorise any person to enter into, or upon, any site or building with or without assistants or workmen for the purpose of: making any enquiry, inspection, measurement or survey or taking levels or such site of building or both; examining works under construction or ascertaining the course of sewers or drains; ascertaining whether any site is being or has been developed or any building is being or has been erected without permission referred to in Section 4 of Act of 1988 or in contravention of any condition subject to which such permission has been granted. However, no entry shall be made, except between the hours of sunrise and sunset and without giving not less than twenty-four hours written notice to occupier or if there is no occupier to owner of building or land, and sufficient opportunity in every instance be given to enable women, if any, to withdraw from such land or building. Order of Demotion of building in certain areas is envisioned under Section 7 of Act of 1988. Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of the Act of 1988 envisages that where erection or re-erection of any building has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed without permission referred to in section 4 of Act of 1988, or in contravention of any condition subject to which any permission has been granted, the Authority shall issue a notice in writing calling upon the person to show cause within a period of 48 hours, why the building should not be altered or demolished as may be deemed necessary to remove the contravention. The Authority shall, under and in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 7 of the Act of 1988, cause notice to be affixed on outer door of some conspicuous part of building whereupon notice shall be deemed to have been duly served upon owner or occupier of building. If the person to whom notice has been given refuses or fails to show cause within a period specified under sub-section (1) or if after hearing that person, the Authority is satisfied that erection or re-erection of building is in contravention of provisions of Act of 1988, the Authority shall, in terms of Sub-Section (3) of Section 7 of Act of 1988, by order direct the person to demolish, alter or pull down the building or part thereof so far as is necessary to remove contravention within a period of not exceeding five days and if the person fails to comply with the direction, the Authority may itself cause erection or re-erection to be demolished after the expiry of said period and may for that purpose use such police force as may be necessary, which shall be made available to him by Police Department on requisition. Here if we go by statement of petitioner BOCA, it granted approval, vide Order dated 08.12.2009, in favour of respondent No. 1, to construct residential building. Here if we go by statement of petitioner BOCA, it granted approval, vide Order dated 08.12.2009, in favour of respondent No. 1, to construct residential building. The construction has been, according to petitioner's version, carried in violation of approval/sanction, therefore, BOCA on 02.11.2011 issued Notice under Section 7(1) of the Act of 1988, to respondent No. 1, to show cause as to why khilafwarzi/violation should not be demolished. This makes it apposite to revisit to Section 7(1) of Act of 1988. It provides: “7. Order of demotion of building in certain areas: (1) Where the erection or re-erection of any building has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed without the permission referred to in section 4 or in contravention of any condition subject to which any permission has been granted, the Authority shall issue a notice in writing calling upon the person to show cause within a period of 48 hours, why the building should not be altered or demolished as may be deemed necessary to remove the contravention.” 9. Going by plain read-through of Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of Act of 1988, the mandate springing therefrom is that the Authority is required to issue notice where it finds erection or re-erection of any building being carried on without permission or in contravention of the permission granted, upon the person asking him to show cause within a period of 48 hours, why the building should not be altered, removed or demolished. As iterated herein above, notice under Section 7(1) was issued on 02.11.2011. From the perusal of record on file, it becomes evident that Notice issued under Section 7(1) of Act of 1988, was affixed on the premises because it could not be served upon respondent No. 1 as she was not present on the spot. Therefore, it can be grasped assumed that the notice was served upon respondent No. 1. Here it is important to pause. In case notice under Section 7(1), if we go by statement of petitioner BOCA, was served upon respondent No. 1 and there was no reply thereto, what was required to be done further by petitioner BOCA in such situation and how it had to proceed ahead in the matter, can be grasped from Section 7(3) of Act of 1988. In case notice under Section 7(1), if we go by statement of petitioner BOCA, was served upon respondent No. 1 and there was no reply thereto, what was required to be done further by petitioner BOCA in such situation and how it had to proceed ahead in the matter, can be grasped from Section 7(3) of Act of 1988. What Section 7(3) envisages, is profitable to be reproduced infra: “(3) If the person to whom the notice has been given refused or fails to show cause within a period specified under sub-section (1) or if after hearing that person, the Authority is satisfied that the erection or re-erection of the building is in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1988, the Authority shall by order direct the person to demolish, alter or pull down the building or part thereof so far as is necessary to remove the contravention within a period of not exceeding five days as may be specified in the order and if the person fails to comply with the direction, the Authority may itself cause the erection or re-erection to be demolished after the expiry of the said period and may for that purpose use such Police Force as may be necessary which shall be made available to him by the Police Department on requisition.” 10. Section 7(3) of Act of 1988 univocally envisions that in the event the person, upon whom notice under Section 7(1) is served, fails to show cause within a period of 48 hours, as specified under Section 7(1), the Authority is enjoined by Section 7(3) to demolish, alter or pull down the building or its part within a period of not exceeding five days and even if the person fails to comply with and follow what is required to be done in terms of notice under Section 7(3), the Authority is required to demolish such contravention. However, while having bird's eye view of the whole case projected by petitioner, it is palpably apparent that petitioner BOCA, after issuing notice under Section 7(1) on 02.11.2011 upon respondent No. 1, remained inert and did not demonstrate or display any punctuality in discharge of their Statutory obligation and duty as cast upon them under provisions of Section 7(3) of Act of 1988, to act swiftly, in the event response was not submitted by respondent No. 1 to Notice under Section 7(1). Petitioner BOCA remained silent, after issuing notice under Section 7(1), and did not act for next two months. Petitioner BOCA was otherwise mandatorily required to act and proceed ahead in the matter within five days as prescribed and ordained by Section 7(3) of Act of 1988. This ipso facto divulges that petitioner BOCA was not having subjective satisfaction qua alleged violations or, for that matter, petitioner BOCA was satisfied as to no violations on part of respondent No. 1, that is why petitioner BOCA did not act promptly as was required under provisions of Section 7(3) of Act of 1988. Notice, therefore, not issued within prescribed period, as enjoined under Section 7(3) of Act of 1988, is Achilles' heel in petitioner's case and knocks the stuffing out of its whole case. On this count alone writ petition on hand lacks in merit and qualifies for dismissal. 11. In addition to what has been discussed above, it is important to have glimpse of provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Act, 2000 (Act No. XXI of 2000) as has been one of the main contentions of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 in opposition to writ petition. Act of 2000 has been enacted by the Jammu and Kashmir State Legislature in the Fifty-First year of the Republic of India. The Act aims to amend and consolidate the law relating to the establishment of Municipal Corporation for certain Municipal areas in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It contains as many as 23 Chapters comprised in 428 sections. Act of 2000 has been enacted by the Jammu and Kashmir State Legislature in the Fifty-First year of the Republic of India. The Act aims to amend and consolidate the law relating to the establishment of Municipal Corporation for certain Municipal areas in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It contains as many as 23 Chapters comprised in 428 sections. It is an elaborate legislation, covering numerous arenas, like incorporation and constitution of corporation; duration of the corporation; delimitation of wards; qualification of and disqualification for councillors; election to the corporation; reservation of seats for certain categories; right to vote; publication of results of elections; election petition; functions of corporation; appointment of commissioner, functions of commissioner; constitution of Corporation fund; operation of accounts with banks; imposition of taxes by corporation; fees that may be charged by the corporation; taxation of union properties; recovery of taxes on lands and buildings from occupiers; tax on vehicles and animals; levy on development tax; tax on advertisements; fee on building applications; water supply, drainage and sewage disposal; streets; building regulations; sanitation and public health; public safety and suppression of nuisances; extinction and prevention of fire; markets, slaughter houses, trades and occupation; improvement; regulation of felling and planting trees; powers, procedure, offences and penalties; transaction of business by the corporation; corporation officers and other corporation employees; revenue and expenditure; taxes and fees; properties and contracts; water supply, drainage and sewage disposal; streets; building operations, prohibition of erection of building without sanction, erection of building, applications for additions to, or repairs of building, sanction or refusal of building of work, order of demolition and stoppage of building and works in certain cases and appeal, order of stoppage of building or works in certain cases, power of government to give directions for compounding deviations from sanctioned plan; sanitation and public health. 12. In terms of Notification/SRO 46 dated 18th February 2003, Chapters I, II, V, section 79 of Chapter VII, Chapter XV, XVI, XVIII, XIX, XXI (exception section 386) and XXIII of J&K Municipal Act, 2000, have come into force from 18th February 2003. 13. 12. In terms of Notification/SRO 46 dated 18th February 2003, Chapters I, II, V, section 79 of Chapter VII, Chapter XV, XVI, XVIII, XIX, XXI (exception section 386) and XXIII of J&K Municipal Act, 2000, have come into force from 18th February 2003. 13. By SRO 26 dated 4th February 2005 Chapter III (except sub-clause (iii), (iv) and (vii) of sub-section (1)(b) of section 42, clause (b) of section 43), Chapters IV, VI, VII, VIII (except section 86(1)(a) and section 87), IX, X, XI, XII (except sections 166 to 18), XIII, XIV, XX and XXII have enforced from 4th February 2005. 14. Chapter I of the Act of 2000, comprises of Sections 1 and 2. Sub-Section (3) of Section 2 envisions that “Building” means a shop, house, out-house, stable, latrine, urinal, shed, hut, wall or any other structure, whether of masonry, bricks, wood, metal or other material and includes a well but does not include any portable shelter. “Bye-laws” in terms of Section 2(4) means a bye-law made under the Act of 2000, by notification in the Government Gazette and “regulation” under Sub-section 40 of Section 2 means a regulation made by the Corporation under this Act, by notification in the Government Gazette. Sub-Section (29) of Section 2 of Act of 2000 says that “municipal area” is the territorial area of the Corporation declared under Section 3 of the Act of 2000. 15. Chapter II consists of Sections 03 to 40. Section 03 envisions declaration of Municipal area as Corporation. It provides that for the purposes of this Act, the area comprised within the limits of the municipal areas of Jammu and Srinagar shall be limits of Municipal Corporation of Jammu and Srinagar respectively. 16. Chapter XIV is pertinent vis-a-vis subject matter of present controversy. It gives entire picture qua Building Regulations and comprises of Sections 241 to 261. Section 243 imparts erection of building. Under this section, a person, intending to erect a building, is to give notice to Commissioner and while doing so he is deposit all requisite information as may be demanded or sought for in that regard. It gives entire picture qua Building Regulations and comprises of Sections 241 to 261. Section 243 imparts erection of building. Under this section, a person, intending to erect a building, is to give notice to Commissioner and while doing so he is deposit all requisite information as may be demanded or sought for in that regard. Section 244 provides that if a person intends to make any addition to a building or to make any alteration to a building involving removal or re-erection in any external or partition wall thereof or of any wall which supports the roof thereof to an extend exceeding one half of such wall above the plinth level, such half to be measured in superficial metres or to make any alteration or repairs to a frame building involving the removal or re-erection of more than one half of the posts in any such wall thereof as aforesaid or involving removal or re-erection of any such wall thereof as aforesaid to an extent exceeding one half of such wall above plinth level, such half to be measured in superficial metres, or to make any alteration in a building involving the sub-division of any room in such building so as to convert the same into two or more separate rooms or the conversion of any passage or space in such building into a room or rooms, or to repair, remove, construct, or reconstruct or make any addition to or structural alteration in any portion of a building abutting on a street which stands within the regular line of such street, or close permanently any door or window in an external wall and to remove or reconstruct the principal staircase or to alter its position, shall apply for sanction by giving notice in writing of his intention to Commissioner in such form and containing such information as may be prescribed by bye-laws made in this behalf and every such notice shall be accompanied by such documents and plans as may be so prescribed. The Commissioner shall, as envisaged by Section 246 of Act of 2000, sanction the erection of building or the execution of work unless such building or work would contravene any of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 246 or the provisions of Section 250. Various grounds are available under Sub-Section (2) of Section 246 for refusal of sanctioning a building permission. Various grounds are available under Sub-Section (2) of Section 246 for refusal of sanctioning a building permission. Where within a period of 60 days, after receipt of notice under Section 243 or 244 or of the further information, if any, required under Section 245, the Commissioner does not refuse to sanction the building or work or upon refusal does not communicate the refusal to the person who has given the notice, the Commissioner, as provided under Section 247, shall be deemed to have accorded sanction to the building or work and the person by whom the notice has been given shall be free to commence and proceed with the building or work in accordance with his intention as expressed by him in the notice. Where a building or work is sanctioned or deemed to have been sanctioned by Commissioner, the person who has given notice, as envisaged under Sub-Section (2) of Section 247, shall be bound to erect building or execute work in accordance with such sanction, but not so as to contravene any of provisions of Act of 2000 or any other law or any bye-law made thereunder. The person proposing to commence construction, is required under Sub-Section (4) of Section 247, to intimate Commissioner proposed date for commencement of erection of building or execution of work. Not only this, where building operations are to be carried on, the person concerned is in terms of Sub-Section (5) of Section 247 to intimate the Corporation about the excavation of foundation. Sub-section (6) of Section 247 envisions that in order to ascertain whether status of land, over which a building is to be erected is geologically fit, and building operation thereon can be carried out in accordance with sanctioned plan, the Corporation may, within seven days from the intimation under sub-section (5), cause inspection of excavated foundation to be made by such persons as it may direct and in such manner as may be prescribed; provided that the person at whose instance building operations are carried out shall be associated in the inspection. Commissioner is empowered to cancel under Section 248 permission if he finds that by misrepresentation the sanction has been obtained. Section 253 makes visible how to stop building or order demolition thereof in the event of contravention. 17. Commissioner is empowered to cancel under Section 248 permission if he finds that by misrepresentation the sanction has been obtained. Section 253 makes visible how to stop building or order demolition thereof in the event of contravention. 17. In the event erection of any work has been commenced, or is being carried on or has been completed without or contrary to sanction, referred to in Section 246 of Act of 2000 or in contravention of any condition subject to which such sanction has been accorded or in contravention of provisions of Act of 2000, or bye-laws made thereunder, Commissioner may, in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 254, in addition to any other action that may be taken under this Act, make an order directing that such erection or work shall be demolished by the person at whose instance erection or work has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed within such period, not being less than 07 days from the date on which a copy of demolition order with a brief statement of reasons therefor, has been delivered to that person, as may be specified in the demolition order, but no demotion order shall be made unless the person has been given, by means of a notice served in such manner as Commissioner may think fit, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order should not be made. Thus, Act of 2000, particularly in terms of its Section 253, provides a reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be afforded prior to issuance of order of demolition by Commissioner. In the present case, same is the position. Sub-Section (2) of Section 253 gives right to aggrieved person to prefer an appeal against order of demolition before Special Tribunal. On receipt of the appeal the Tribunal may, as is envisioned in Sub-Section (3) of Section 253, stay operation of demolition order on such terms, if any and for such period, as it may think fit. 18. In the event there are cases where erection of building or execution of any work has been commenced or is being carried on, but has not been completed, without permission or in contravention of sanctioned permission, Commissioner may, in terms of Section 254, stop the same forthwith. Sub-Section (5) is important is an important segment of Section 254. 18. In the event there are cases where erection of building or execution of any work has been commenced or is being carried on, but has not been completed, without permission or in contravention of sanctioned permission, Commissioner may, in terms of Section 254, stop the same forthwith. Sub-Section (5) is important is an important segment of Section 254. It provides that where the owner of building submits revised plan, after the work has been stopped by him or the work is completed by him and deviations from sanctioned plan are minor in nature, Commissioner may subject to special and general directions of the State Government under section 255, compound the cases of deviations. 19. Section 255 is an interesting provision of Act of 2000. It empowers the Government to give direction for compounding deviations from sanctioned plan. It says that the Government may, from time to time, give such special or general directions in the matter of policy in relation to the compounding of the cases involving deviations from the sanctioned plan as in its opinion are required to be followed by Commissioner for compounding such cases under sub-section (5) of section 254 of this Act. So, a room is available in Act of 2000, to the compounding of cases involving deviations from sanctioned plan. 20. It is in this viewpoint important to mention here that the Division Bench of this Court in PIL No. 05/2013 titled Majeeb Andrabi vs. State of J&K, directed the J&K State Government to come up with a Policy owing to a very large number of Master Plan/building Byelaws violations in major cities of Srinagar, Jammu and Katra. In consequence, a High-Level Committee was constituted by the Government. On the recommendations of said Committee, the J&K Legislature passed J&K Civil Law (Special Provisions) Act, 2014 (for brevity “Act of 2014”) which received assent of the Governor on 5th March 2014 and disseminated for general public in the J&K Government Gazette. The Act of 2014 was passed and enacted aiming at formulating a comprehensive uniform policy tackling the issue of the violations. Section 03 of Act of 2014 provides that the State Government shall formulate a policy before 31st March 2015, to deal with/regulate unauthorised construction of buildings/structures in the areas covered by the Act. Section 04 of the Act of 2014 is an important provision of the Act of 2014. It provides: “4. Section 03 of Act of 2014 provides that the State Government shall formulate a policy before 31st March 2015, to deal with/regulate unauthorised construction of buildings/structures in the areas covered by the Act. Section 04 of the Act of 2014 is an important provision of the Act of 2014. It provides: “4. No action to be taken pending formulation of Policy: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in any law, rule, regulation, bye-law, or order for the time being in force or any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal, no building or structure shall be demolished or sealed, and no penalty shall be imposed in respect of such building or structure, on the ground of such building or structure having been constructed or erected in violation of master plan pending finalization of the policy under section 3...... (2) All notices issued by any local authority for initiating action against unauthorized construction or master plan violation in respect of areas to which this Act applies shall be deemed to have been suspended until 31st of March, 2015, or until a policy is formulated by the Government, whichever is earlier. (3) If any local authority intends to take any punitive action against any person in respect of buildings or structures that have come up prior to coming into force of this Act for contravening any provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Development Act, 1970, the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Act, 2000, the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Corporation Act, 2000 and the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operations Act, 1988 or any law, rule or bye-law for the time being in force in the State, prior permission of Administrative Secretary of the Housing and Urban Development Department, or an officer authorized by him in this behalf, shall be obtained before taking any such action.” 21. Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of Act of 2014 envisages and univocally provides that even if any law, rule, regulation, bye-law or order, or even any judgment, decree or order passed by any court or tribunal, no building or structure shall be demolished or sealed and even no penalty shall be imposed in respect of such building or structure that has been erected or constructed in violation of master plan till policy in terms of Section 3 of Act of 2014 is finalised. The said provisions are also in letter and spirit applicable to the present case. 22. Sub-Section (2) of Section 04 of Act of 2014 is very important as it categorically makes it clear and ordains the authorities, including present petitioner BOCA, that all Notices, issued for initiating action against unauthorised constructions, shall be deemed to have been suspended till the policy is formulated by the Government. Thus, petitioner BOCA was estopped by Act of 2014 to proceed ahead in the matter vis-a-vis the subject matter of instant writ petition. 23. On 15th April 2014, an Expert Committee was constituted by the Government vide Government Order No. 157-HUD of 2014, to check the action to be taken against new/incomplete illegal constructions, which were being raised in Srinagar, Jammu and Katra after enactment of the J&K Civil Laws (Special Provision) Act, 2014. Insofar as present case is concerned, the alleged violation/deviations had taken place in the year 2011. Having said so, present case comes and falls within ambit of Act of 2014. 24. Another Government Order No. 167-HUD of 2014 dated 25th April 2014 was issued, constituting teams for identification, location and categorization of violations under Master Plans of Jammu and Katra/Building Bye-Laws of relevant authorities/corporations, that had come up prior to enactment of Act of 2014. In Jammu City, 4131 violations of various types were reported by the teams constituted by the Government. J&K Government again came up with a Government Order No. 230-HUD of 2014 dated 5th August 2014, constituting Expert Committee for scrutinisation of Master Plan violations/Building Bye-Laws violations and coming up with a Policy, addressing these violations in the revised Master Plans. The Committees were asked to keep standards of Town Planning in view while framing the policy for violations. The Committees were also asked to furnish their recommendations. The Committees submitted their reports. The State Cabinet vide Decision No. 53/4/2017 dated 28th April 2017, approved the said reports. On the edifice of the reports of these Committees, a Policy has been laid down by the J&K State Government, forming Annexure to Notification, issued vide SRO 391 dated 20th September 2017. 25. Clause 2.1 of SRO 391 gives definition of various expressions. One of the expressions is “Un-authorized structures” i.e. sub-clause (v) of Clause 2.1 envisions that unauthorised structures means any building raised without seeking proper permission from a competent authority or in contravention of the sanctioned plan. 25. Clause 2.1 of SRO 391 gives definition of various expressions. One of the expressions is “Un-authorized structures” i.e. sub-clause (v) of Clause 2.1 envisions that unauthorised structures means any building raised without seeking proper permission from a competent authority or in contravention of the sanctioned plan. In the present case, petitioner BOCA alleges contravention of the sanctioned plan by respondent No. 1. In terms of Clause 2.2 of SRO 391, the Policy shall be applicable for a period of one year i.e. from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 for the local areas of Srinagar, Jammu and Katra. Objectives of the Policy, under Clause 2.3 of SRO 391, are to bring the illegal and unauthorised buildings/ constructions and land use or building use conversions into planning framework to the extent possible and to facilitate the implementation of the Master Plans under revision. Only those illegal/unauthorised/unapproved buildings which have been constructed and completed before 31st March 2016, in terms of Clause 2.4 of SRO 391, shall be considered under the Policy. Procedure for compounding an illegal/unauthorised constructions and land use building, use conversions is enumerated under Clause 2.8. An applicant is, under Clause 2.8.1 to apply for compounding of offences in the format as prescribed by the competent authority to the competent authority along with the documents as enumerated in Clause 2.8.2. The competent authority can raise the demand for payment of charges to the applicant and issue regularisation certificate to the owner/developer after fulfilment of conditions as laid down in the policy after carrying out such changes as prescribed in the regularisation order, is provided in Clause 2.8.4. In the Policy, the violations have been classified in three categories viz. (a) building built at permissible sites but built without permission; (b) building built at permissible sites with permission but having violated the permission, but without change of the land use; (c) building having resorted to the conversion of land uses. This is followed by the regularisation-fee to be charged for violations tabulated under Clause 3 of SRO 391. 26. Applying foregoing parameters to the case at bar, it squarely comes and falls within ambit and purview of SRO 391. Having said so, writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 27. In view of aforesaid analysis and for all what has been discussed and stated above, writ petition is dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. Having said so, writ petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 27. In view of aforesaid analysis and for all what has been discussed and stated above, writ petition is dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. However, respondent No. 1 is free, under and in terms of SRO 391 dated 20th September 2017, to approach petitioner BOCA within the time prescribed in SRO 391, for regularisation of contraventions, if any, taken place while raising construction in question and petitioner BOCA is expected to consider and decide the case of petitioner in light of SRO 391. No order as to costs.