JUDGMENT : VINEET SARAN, J. 1. The Cuttack Municipal Corporation, opposite party no.3 in the writ petition, has filed this intra-Court appeal challenging a part of the direction contained in the common judgment dated 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 17960/2015, W.P.(C) No.23245/2015, W.P.(C) No.227/2016, W.P.(C) No.1334/2016 and W.P.(C) No.1425/2016, by which direction has been issued to the Commissioner of Police (respondent no.3 herein) to take steps for plying the City buses/Town buses at a suitable distance from the residential area, i.e., in the Ring Road area only, which is at a walk-able distance from any side of the residential area and that the said buses should not enter into the residential areas. 2. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that Cuttack Development Authority (CDA), which has been created under Orissa Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), had launched residential plotted scheme, being commonly known as ‘Abhinab Bidanasi Project Area, Cuttack’ in order to cater to the needs of residential houses in Cuttack city. Under the said scheme, various plots were created in a phased manner having different sectors. Plots were allotted on long term lease basis for residential purposes only. As per the conditions stipulated in the allotment order, as well as in application brochure, the allotted plots should be used only for residential purposes with certain terms and conditions under the Act. The said location/area is coming under the Cuttack Municipal Corporation, and as such the Orissa Municipal Corporation Act, 2003 (for short “the Municipal Act”) and the Rules framed there under are also applicable, and for any violation thereof, stringent actions have been provided in the Municipal Act. 3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17960/2015 (respondent no.5 in this appeal), who is a practicing lawyer of this Court, has been allotted by the CDA a plot bearing no.1499/C measuring (60’ x 40’) 2400 Sft. of category ‘C’ under the aforesaid project for domestic purpose, and is residing there permanently by constructing a house. Respondent no.4-Debendra Hazra, being the owner of plot no.1498/C, Sector-10 measuring an area 60’ x 40’, has also constructed a three storied (G+2) building, which is adjacent to Plot No. 1499/C. It was alleged that respondent no4, by allowing to run a hostel in the building in question, utilized the same for commercial purpose. Respondent no.4-Debendra Hazra, being the owner of plot no.1498/C, Sector-10 measuring an area 60’ x 40’, has also constructed a three storied (G+2) building, which is adjacent to Plot No. 1499/C. It was alleged that respondent no4, by allowing to run a hostel in the building in question, utilized the same for commercial purpose. That is to say, respondent no.4 utilized the residential plot for purpose other than for which it had been allotted, which was in gross violation of conditions of allotment. For violation of any of the conditions stipulated in the allotment order, the authority can cancel the allotment and resume the possession of the property. By utilizing the building constructed over plot No.1498/C, respondent no.4 created nuisance and caused noise, air and water pollution, which grossly affected the privacy of neighbouring plot owners. Furthermore, since for picking up the students of the hostel many buses were plying, an unhygienic situation was created in the area. Hence, respondent no.5, as petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17960/2015 approached this Court seeking for direction to remove the hostel from the residential area. 4. After hearing the said writ petition, along with W.P.(C) No.23245/2015, W.P.(C) No.227/2016, W.P.(C) No.1334/2016 and W.P.(C) No.1425/2016, learned Single Judge by the common judgment dated 24.06.2016 disposed of the writ petition directing the CDA to take a decision on the notices issued to the allottees, who had deviated the approved plan and the terms and conditions of the allotment order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the judgment, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, and also directed respondent no.3 to take steps so that the City buses/Town buses, which were plying in the area and creating nuisance, should ply at a suitable distance from the residential area, i.e., in the Ring Road area only, which was at a walk-able distance from any side of the residential area. The appellant, being aggrieved by the latter part of the direction given by the learned Single Judge imposing restriction on plying of City/Town buses, has preferred this appeal. 5. Mr. The appellant, being aggrieved by the latter part of the direction given by the learned Single Judge imposing restriction on plying of City/Town buses, has preferred this appeal. 5. Mr. J. Pal, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the City/Town buses had been plying in CDA area pursuant to the order dated 07.01.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), i.e. OJC No.6721 of 1999 keeping in view the interest and convenience of the travelling public and residents of CDA area. Therefore, the part of the impugned order, aggrieved by which this intra-Court appeal has been filed, has been passed in oblivious of the order dated 07.01.2005 passed by the Division of this Court in O.J.C. No.6721 of 1999. It is further contended that no relief was sought for in W.P.(C) 17960 of 2015 with regard to plying of City/Town buses in CDA area, thereby the direction so given was in excess of the relief sought in the said writ petition. Along with O.J.C. No.6721 of 1999 (PIL), another writ petition [W.P.(C) No.11744 of 2010] was filed by a practicing lawyer of this Court, wherein prayer was made to issue direction to include Cuttack City for plying buses and include the concerned authorities to ply buses on the specific route. In the said writ petition, it was disclosed by the State Government that on the basis of communication dated 03.01.2012 of the Director (U.T.), Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India made to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Odisha that the Government of India in the Ministry of Urban Development agreed to the proposal of the State Government for extending the JnNURM buses to run from Bhubaneswar to Cuttack in its 93rd and 94th meeting held on 17th, 18th and 25th of February, 2011. It is further contended that the PIL Bench of this Court had also directed the Traffic Management Committee to prepare a route chart for 30 vehicles, which were to be plied, connecting Cuttack and Bhubaneswar. Keeping in view the interest of general public, the Traffic Management Committee had constituted a Sub-Committee for preparing the route chart. It is further contended that the PIL Bench of this Court had also directed the Traffic Management Committee to prepare a route chart for 30 vehicles, which were to be plied, connecting Cuttack and Bhubaneswar. Keeping in view the interest of general public, the Traffic Management Committee had constituted a Sub-Committee for preparing the route chart. Accordingly, a route chart was prepared and on that basis, if the City/Town buses were plying, the direction given by the learned Single Judge is virtually contrary to the direction given by the PIL Bench of this Court in O.J.C. No.6721 of 1999 vide order dated 07.01.2005. Therefore, the appellant seeks for quashing of that part of the direction contained in the judgment dated 24.06.2016 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17960/2015. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent nos.1 and 3 stated that the authorities have only complied the direction given by this Court permitting the City/Town buses to move through the Ring Road, without allowing them entering into the CDA area. 7. Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submitted that in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the City/Town buses are not being allowed to enter into CDA area. 8. Mr. R.C. Iyar, learned counsel for respondent no.4 stated that the authorities have complied with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge and respondent no.4 has no role to play for stoppage of plying of City/Town buses within Cuttack town and CDA area. 9. Mr. Patitapaban Panda-respondent no.5 appearing in person contended that in W.P.(C) No.17960 of 2015, which was filed by him, no prayer was made for stoppage of plying of City/Town buses in Cuttack town and CDA area. He has no objection if the said buses ply as before in CDA area for greater interest of public at large. It is further contended that the first part of the direction contained in the judgment dated 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17960 of 2015, along with connected matters, was challenged by respondent no.4 before this Court in W.A. No.333 of 2016 and this Court, while dismissing the writ appeal, confirmed the same. It is further contended that the first part of the direction contained in the judgment dated 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17960 of 2015, along with connected matters, was challenged by respondent no.4 before this Court in W.A. No.333 of 2016 and this Court, while dismissing the writ appeal, confirmed the same. Therefore, any order passed in this case may cause prejudice to him so far as it relates to the direction given with regard to taking decision on the notices issued to the allottees, who have deviated the terms and conditions of the allotment order. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, as well as respondent no.5 in person, and perused the records. 11. The undisputed facts are that both respondents no.4 and no.5 are allottees of plots no.1498/C and no.1499/C respectively in Sector 10, CDA, Cuttack, which are adjacent to each others. Respondent no.4, having constructed a three floor (G+2) building over his plot, has been utilizing the same for commercial purpose by running a private hostel. The same was objected to by respondent no.5 contending that even though the land was allotted for residential purpose, instead of utilizing the same for the purpose for which it was allotted, the respondent no.4 utilized the same for commercial purpose, which is not permissible, either in the allotment order or under the provisions of law governing the field. The matter, having not been decided by the statutory authority, was carried to the High Court in WP(C) No.17960 of 2015. The learned Single Judge, while deciding such question inter alia directed that, since the City/Town buses plying in the CDA area were creating nuisance, respondent no.3 should take steps for plying the said buses at a suitable distance from the residential area, i.e., in the Ring Road area only, which is at a walk-able distance from any side of the residential area, and that the said buses should not enter into the residential area. 12. In the instant writ appeal, we have been called upon to examine whether the above noted direction is in consonance with the relief sought in W.P.(C) No.17960 of 2015. A perusal of the said writ petition would show that the writ petitioner in paragraph-9 thereof pleaded to the following effect. “9. 12. In the instant writ appeal, we have been called upon to examine whether the above noted direction is in consonance with the relief sought in W.P.(C) No.17960 of 2015. A perusal of the said writ petition would show that the writ petitioner in paragraph-9 thereof pleaded to the following effect. “9. xxxx It is further to be noted here that there are minimum 15 to 20 times heavy buses are plying every day for the hostel purpose, minimum 20 buses are parking everyday on the road apart from other four wheelers light vehicles whose numbers are not less than 30 to 40. Small children of the locality are afraid of playing in the residential area. Many a times school going children are facing accident due to plying of heavy vehicles each and every day including Sunday. The traffic problems are being created in and around the residential area. The area is being fully polluted due to unhygienic situation created by boys and girls hostels run by some private persons for commercial gain and thereby the peaceful life of the inhabitants has been seriously affected.” And in the prayer portion the relief to the following effect has been sought for: “The petitioner therefore, most humbly prays you’re your Lordship may be graciously pleased to issue Rule NISI to the Opp. Parties calling upon them as to why the private hostels running particularly in Plot No.1498/C and Plot No.1008/C, Sector-10 shall not be removed from the residential area, failing to show cause or show insufficient cause make the said rule absolute and further be pleased to direct the private hostels running in the residential area under C.D.A. shall be removed including Plot No.11498/C and Plot No.1008/C, Sector-10 within a stipulated time.” 13. On perusal of the pleadings mentioned above, nowhere the petitioner has claimed for taking any steps with regard to plying of City/Town buses at a suitable distance from the residential area of the CDA, and that the said buses should not enter into the residential area of CDA. Even if no relief was sought for to that extent, learned Single Judge extended its jurisdiction in granting such relief, which was not asked for in the writ petition. Even if no relief was sought for to that extent, learned Single Judge extended its jurisdiction in granting such relief, which was not asked for in the writ petition. May it be that the learned Single Judge has exercised its power under Article 226 of Constitution of India, but that does not empower the writ Court to pass an order beyond the scope of relief sought for in the writ petition. As such, the relief granted to a party should be in consonance with the prayer made in the writ petition itself, more particularly, when the City/Town buses were allowed to ply pursuant to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court and the scheme framed by the Government and monitored by Traffic Management Committee constituted by this Court. In our view, the learned Single Judge ought not to have passed an order to that extent, which is beyond its scope, causing inconvenience to the general public. 14. A Division Bench of this Court in O.J.C. No.6721 of 1999 passed an order on 07.01.2005, the relevant portion of which runs as follows: “In our considered opinion, issuance of V.C.Rs. is not enough. The R.T.O. should be vigilant and strict enough to see that town-buses ply in terms of the permits issued and the orders passed by this Court on earlier occasions. The R.T.O. is directed to submit a report regarding the steps taken for plying the buses by the next date. The Vice-Chairman of the C.D.A., who is also present in Court, submits that the C.D.A. has already taken steps for running its own town buses via-Bidanasi and Biju Patnaik Park (C.D.A.). The Municipal Commissioner submits that the C.M.C. has applied for issue of necessary permit to operate town-buses in and around C.D.A. areas including the areas of Biju Patnaik Park. The Collector submits that if any application of the C.M.C. is pending for grant of permit, steps shall be taken for grant of such permit soon. In or opinion, it is the bounden duty of the C.M.C. and C.D.A. to see that their town-buses ply in the newly developed areas in Cuttack City one of which is C.D.A. which has been developed by the C.D.A. so that it will cater to the needs of the residents of those areas as well as other general public. In or opinion, it is the bounden duty of the C.M.C. and C.D.A. to see that their town-buses ply in the newly developed areas in Cuttack City one of which is C.D.A. which has been developed by the C.D.A. so that it will cater to the needs of the residents of those areas as well as other general public. The Municipal Commissioner, who is present, is directed to see that the C.M.C. town-buses touch the last point of Bidanasi and C.D.A. Abhinaba Bidanasi Complex. Any violation in this regard shall be viewed seriously as we are of the opinion that in spite of our previous direction the C.M.C. has not taken any step for plying of town-buses in the newly developed township of Cuttack City. The statement made by the Municipal Commissioner in paragraph 8 of his affidavit that the condition of the town-buses of the C.M.C. is very bad for which the said town-buses could not ply in the entire areas covered under the permits is totally evasive. Such statement is not at all appreciated by this Court. Our directions in this regard should be complied with. The town-buses of the C.M.C. must touch Biju Patnaik Park areas, since those areas are otherwise not provided with any other mode of communication.” The aforementioned order, having been passed by the PIL Bench of this Court, has to be complied with by allowing City/Town buses to ply within CDA area. 15. Subsequently, in a writ application filed by Sri P.K. Mohapatra (W.P.(C) No.11744/2010), this Court directed to ply the buses in the concerned routes connecting Cuttack and Bhubaneswar. Keeping in view the interest of the general public, the Traffic Management Committee constituted a Sub-Committee for preparing a route chart. As per the report of the Sub-Committee and keeping in view the interest of the travelling public, the City/Town buses had been plying in the routes prescribed therein in consonance with the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court. 16. Subsequently, on 13.01.2011, the Division Bench of this Court (PIL Bench) passed orders to the following effect: “In terms of the order dated 06.01.2011, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State has filed the Govt. of India Guidelines for purchase of buses for urban transport system under the JnNURM and the route chart/map along with a memo. But the notification declaring Cuttack-Bhubaneswar as Twin City has not been filed. Standing Counsel for the State has filed the Govt. of India Guidelines for purchase of buses for urban transport system under the JnNURM and the route chart/map along with a memo. But the notification declaring Cuttack-Bhubaneswar as Twin City has not been filed. Learned counsel for the State submits that the city bus service provided to Bhubaneswar-Puri under the JnNURM scheme cannot be extended to Cuttack City as the said scheme is applicable only to Bhubaneswar and Puri towns. We are not concerned whether the JnNURM scheme introduced for Bhubaneswar and Puri will be applicable to Cuttack or not. This Court has in the past passed orders directing the State Govt. for providing adequate number of town buses to the city but the same is yet to be complied with. It is stated by the learned counsel for the State, and we have already indicated in our order, that off late Cuttack City has been included under the JnNURM but the proposal is yet to be materialized. Considering the plight of the commuters on account of lack of adequate town bus service in the city and the apathetic attitude of the State Govt. towards the commuters of the city, even after several years of declaration of this city as a twin city along with Bhubaneswar, we direct the Secretary, Transport Department, as well as the Secretary Housing & Urban Development Department of the State, to take steps for providing at least fifteen town buses over and above the existing town buses for plying as town bus in Cuttack city by end of March, 2011.” 17. Meanwhile, in order to mitigate such direction and considering the plight of the commuters, the Government of Odisha in Housing & Urban Development Department vide its notification dated 22.07.2013 set up a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) Company in the name of “Cuttack Urban Transport Service Limited” (CUTSL). For smooth management of the company, a Board of Directors was constituted comprising various authorities, wherein the Mayor, Cuttack Municipal Corporation was designated as the Chairperson. The said Company was registered on 21.05.2015 under the Companies Act, 2013. It was also decided by the Government to provide 50 buses to the said SPV Company, i.e., Cuttack Urban Transport Service Limited (CUTSL). The said Company was registered on 21.05.2015 under the Companies Act, 2013. It was also decided by the Government to provide 50 buses to the said SPV Company, i.e., Cuttack Urban Transport Service Limited (CUTSL). Out of the same, in the meantime, 30 buses have already been provided for the said purpose, and supply of rest 20 buses are under active consideration of the Government. In our considered opinion, the direction given by the learned Single Judge, aggrieved by which this writ appeal has been filed, is contrary to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court (PIL Bench). 18. Reliance was placed by respondent no.5 on the judgment dated 12.09.2016 passed by this Court in W.A. No.333 of 2016, wherein the very same judgment dated 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17960 of 2015 was under challenge. The said writ appeal preferred by Respondent no.4 has been dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 12.09.2016. On careful perusal of the judgment passed by this Court in W.A. No.333 of 2016 and also pleadings available in the said appeal, it appears that there was no whisper about the plying of City/Town buses and as such, the relief sought for was confined to the direction given to the CDA to consider and take a decision on the notices issued to the allottees in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. Therefore, no discussion has been made in the said judgment with regard to the subject-matter of dispute raised in the present appeal. The judgment in W.A. No.333 of 2016, having been passed on the pleadings available on records of the said writ appeal, and no finding having been arrived at by this Court on plying of City/Town buses in the CDA area, the apprehension of respondent no.5, that any order passed in this appeal may cause prejudice to him, is unfounded. Law is fairly settled that each case has to be considered on the facts pleaded therein. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4, as well as respondent no.5 appearing in person unequivocally urged before this Court that they do not have any objection if City/Town buses will ply within the CDA area to cater the public needs in the greater interest. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4, as well as respondent no.5 appearing in person unequivocally urged before this Court that they do not have any objection if City/Town buses will ply within the CDA area to cater the public needs in the greater interest. In course of hearing, on being confronted by this Court, they candidly stated that no claim with regard to plying of City/Town buses was made before the learned Single Judge. 19. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances, discussed above, we are of the considered view that the direction of the learned Single Judge, contained in paragraph-11 of the judgment dated 24.06.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 17960/2015, to the extent, that respondent no.3 herein should take steps so that the City buses/Town buses, which were plying in the area and creating nuisance, should ply at a suitable distance from the residential area, i.e., in the Ring Road area only, which was at a walk-able distance from any side of the residential area, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed to the extent that the aforesaid part of the direction contained in the judgment dated 24.06.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17960/2015 is quashed. No order as to cost.