JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 20.01.2014 (Annexure 5 to this writ petition) whereby the petitioner has been directed to demolish the “unauthorized construction within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of this notice”. The notice was issued on the report that the petitioner violated the provisions of Rule 5 of the Tripura Building Rules, 2004 by not obtaining formal approval from the Udaipur Nagar Panchayat. 3. The petitioner’s case in short is that on 17.03.2004 the petitioner made an application (Annexure 1 to this writ petition) for sanction of the building plan in terms of Section 123 of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994. Though the said application for sanction of the building plan was received on 17.03.2004, the Municipal authority did neither refuse nor accord the sanction of the building plan. Thereafter, the petitioner having waited for the sixty days had started construction of the building as per the said plan as was submitted with the said application dated 17.03.2004. 4. Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that by means of the deeming fiction as provided under Section 125 of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994, the said plan has to be deemed as sanctioned inasmuch as Section 125(1) of the Tripura Municipal Act provides that within sixty days after the receipt of any application with building plan or of any information or document which the Municipality may reasonably require the applicant to furnish, the Municipality shall, by written order either accord sanction to the building plan and give permission with or without condition to execute the work or refuse to accord the permission. Such building plan shall remain valid for three years from the date of such sanction, and may be renewed for further two years on payment of such fees as may be levied by the Municipal authority. Such building plan shall remain valid for three years from the date of such sanction, and may be renewed for further two years on payment of such fees as may be levied by the Municipal authority. Subsection (3) of Section 125 of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994 contains the deeming fiction by providing that if, within the period referred to Subsection (1) of Section 125 of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994, the Municipality has neither accorded or refused to accord sanction to a building plan or permission of execution, such sanction or permission shall be deemed to have been granted, and the applicant may proceed to execute the work according to the submitted plan. However, it has been categorically provided that nothing in that section shall be deemed to have permitted the applicant to contravene any of the provisions of Tripura Municipal Act or the rules or the regulations made thereunder. Before any person commences to erect or reerect a building the owner of the building, shall send to the Municipality a written notice specifying the date on which he proposes to commence the work. 5. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has submitted that since it is the admitted position that Udaipur Nagar Panchayat, now Udaipur Municipal Council, did not provide any sanction and did neither refuse to sanction the building plan, the petitioner is protected and the petitioner’s plan as submitted with the application dated 17.03.2004 shall have to be deemed to have been sanctioned by Udaipur Nagar Panchayat, as it then was. Thus, the objection as raised in the notice is not tenable. 6. Mr. K.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that no notice of the commencement or completion has been received by Udaipur Nagar Panchayat as yet. The notice was issued as it was complained to Udaipur Nagar Panchayat that the petitioner had constructed a permanent structure without obtaining the sanction or permission from the competent authority of Udaipur Nagar Panchayat. 7. In the reply, Udaipur Nagar Panchayat, now Udaipur Municipal Council did not aver that the application dated 17.03.2004(Annexure1to this writ petition) was never received by them. However, they have raised certain jurisprudential objections viz. 7. In the reply, Udaipur Nagar Panchayat, now Udaipur Municipal Council did not aver that the application dated 17.03.2004(Annexure1to this writ petition) was never received by them. However, they have raised certain jurisprudential objections viz. this writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as there exists substantive provision for appeal under Section 133 of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994 and the petitioner did not submit any plan as per the prescribed building rules and mere submission of any application is not sufficient to claim that he had submitted the plan to the respondents. 8. In para 14 of the said reply, the Municipal respondent has stated that it is true that the complaint was received from the next door neighbour of the petitioner and after physical verification it was found that the petitioner, Shri Anil Chandra Som constructed a permanent structure without obtaining sanction or permission from the competent authority of the then Udaipur Nagar Panchayat. 9. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has submitted that since there was no building plan in terms of the Tripura Building Rules, 2004, the construction as erected by the petitioner is wholly unauthorized and illegal and liable to be demolished on observing the procedure as laid down in Tripura Building Rules, 2004 and Tripura Municipal Act, 1994. 10. Having regard to the reply submitted by the Municipal respondents, this Court is of the view that the Tripura Building Rules, 2004 came into force on 04.12.2004, but the plan for sanction was filed with the application on 17.03.2004. As such, the petitioner cannot be even contemplated to file such a building plan in accordance with the Tripura Building Rules, 2004. Therefore, this objection does not have any substance and is accordingly discarded. 11. The other question that has been raised that the petitioner constructed the building without any sanctioned plan cannot be sustained in view of the provisions of Section 125(3) of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994 as the Municipality did neither refuse nor accord the sanction, and as such the building plan as was filed with the application dated 17.03.2004 has to be deemed to have been sanctioned by the Municipal authority. However, the Municipal authority is at liberty to find whether the said building plan was in accordance with the provisions of law or whether in execution of the construction, the petitioner has committed any illegality in violation of the provisions of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994. The Municipal authority is authorized by the said statute to take appropriate action. But in the notice, there is no murmur of such violation. 12. Having held so, the impugned show cause is set aside and quashed. If the petitioner filed any application for regularization of the building plan that would be determined by Udaipur Municipal Council. Similarly, for the occupancy certificate, the Municipal Council shall be within its jurisdiction to consider and to pass the appropriate order. 13. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. However, there shall be no cost in the circumstances of the case. A copy of this order be supplied to Mr. K.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.