JUDGMENT : 1. Building Operation Controlling Authority (BOCA) has filed a writ petition challenging the order of the learned Jammu & Kashmir Special Tribunal, Jammu dated 25.08.2011 allowing compounding of the violations by respondent No.1 on the ground that the majority of the violations were not compoundable and secondly that the premises were being used for commercial purposes in violation of the rules applicable. 2. Mr. Sawhney, learned counsel for respondent No.1, states that the writ petition can be disposed of by directing compounding of the violations as are permissible in accordance with the regulations applicable i.e., as per details given in Paragraph 5(g) of the writ petition. As regards violations which are not compoundable, respondent No.1 would demolish the same to the satisfaction of the petitioner. Further, respondent No.1 would only carry out such activities in the premises as is permissible in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable. The same satisfies learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. In view thereof, statement of learned counsel for the parties is taken on record. Writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner/BOCA to compound the violations as are permissible to be compounded by charging such compounding fee as is chargeable in accordance with the rules and regulations applicable. Violations which are not compoundable as per the petitioner would be demolished by respondent No.1 on intimation being given by the petitioner to respondent No.1 in writing. Respondent No.1 would comply with the direction to demolish the violations within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of written intimation from the petitioner. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that due to review of Master-Plan on 16.02.2017, certain other activities can be carried out in the premises Respondent No.1 would furnish an undertaking by way of an affidavit to the petitioner that the premises in question shall be used only for such purposes for which sanction has been accorded by the petitioner/BOCA or purposes for which the premises can be used as per revised Master-plan after obtaining appropriate permission from the competent authority. 4. In the light of the review of the Master Plan, it would be open to respondent No.1 to move an application before the petitioner/competent authority for grant of approval for carrying out activities in the premises in question as are permissible as per revised Master Plan. 5. 4. In the light of the review of the Master Plan, it would be open to respondent No.1 to move an application before the petitioner/competent authority for grant of approval for carrying out activities in the premises in question as are permissible as per revised Master Plan. 5. With the aforementioned directions, writ petition (OWP No.1423/2011) alongwith connected MPs stands disposed of. 6. Mr. A.K. Sawhney, learned counsel for the respondents in OWP No.1538/2011, states that instant writ petition arising out of Contempt petition filed by him before the J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu. He states that he does not press the contempt petition pending before the learned Tribunal. Statement of learned counsel for respondents in OWP No.1538/2011 is taken on record and in view of the statement and the order passed in OWP No.1423/2011, writ petition (OWP 1538/2011) alongwith MPs is dismissed as infructous.