JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner invokes extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, by challenging judgment and order dated 03.01.2013, passed by learned J&K Special Tribunal, Jammu, (for brevity “Tribunal”) in an Appeal filed by respondent no.1 against Demolition Order dated 25.09.2007issued by petitioner. Learned Tribunal has accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 25.09.2007 passed by the petitioner. 2. Jammu Municipal Corporation, Jammu, vide Order dated 27.08.2003granted permission in favour of respondent no.1 for raising construction of two rooms, toilet and stairs at 2nd floor over the existing ground floor and first floor and replacement of roofs of the existing ground floor and first floor with certain conditions mentioned therein. Based on the report of Khilafwarzi Inspector, respondent no.1 was, vide notice dated 16-7-2007, asked to show cause as to alleged unauthorized construction of “Filling of Pillars after dismantle of walls at Pacca Danga, Jammu without proper permission”. 3. Respondent No.1 submitted the reply dated 18-7-2007 to aforesaid show cause notice. However, simultaneously, respondent No.2, by exercising powers under Section 12 (1) of the J&K Control of Building Act, 1988 (for short “Act”) directed respondent No.1 to discontinue further construction. The aforesaid show cause notice was followed by order No. MJ/Estt/13/3/CEO/07 dated 25-9-2007, by exercising the powers conferred under Section 7(3) of the Act, asking respondent No.1 to demolish alleged unauthorized construction; the reference whereof was made in show cause notice dated 16.07.2007. The aforesaid order of demolition was challenged by respondent No.1, before the Tribunal. The record of the case was produced before the Tribunal. After hearing parties and after having gone through the record, the Tribunal has, vide judgment and order dated 03.01.2013 set aside the order of demolition issued by petitioner. Respondent No.1, however, has been directed not to restart the construction until and unless the building permission accorded to him is renewed. 4. That the aforesaid judgment and order has been challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds: - (i) That respondent No.1 raised pillars and laid down slab over it on the ground floor and first floor without obtaining any permission from the authority and respondent No.1 has raised fresh construction and made structural changes in the existing building which is in violation of the conditions of sanctioned plan. (ii) That the construction was raised after expiry of the period provided in the sanction order. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently argued that the construction of pillars for replacement of the roofs of the ground floor and first floor was in violation of the sanction order dated 27-8-2003. 6. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by counsel for petitioner, the nature of sanction accorded in favour of respondent no.1 is pertinent, therefore, relevant part of sanction order is reproduced below: “Sanction is hereby accorded for raising the construction of 2 rooms, toilet and stairs at the 2nd floor over the existing ground floor and first floor shown yellow in colour and replacement of roofs of the existing ground floor and first floor as shown red in colour in favour of Sh. Joginder Gandotra S/o Late Sh. Shiv Lal at 53, Pacca Danga, Gali Sehgalan, Jammu with the following conditions….” 7. Admittedly, permission in favour of respondent no.1, was granted for replacement of roofs of existing ground floor and first floor of his house. The objection of petitioner is that respondent No.1 constructed the pillars on which the roofs have been replaced. Thus, the question is as to whether the construction of such pillars in order to give the strength to the building and roofs, amounts to violation of any provisions of the Act or the sanction order. The answer is contained in Clause-8 of the sanction order itself, which is reproduced below: - “The RCC slabs shall be laid properly designed through the structural Engineer and the Structural Engineer/owner of the building shall be responsible for structural safety of this building and stability of the surrounding building.” 8. One of the functions of the Municipal Authority is that while granting permission for raising the construction, an appropriate condition has to be stipulated regarding structural safety of the building and surrounding buildings. For that purpose above quoted condition no.8 has been incorporated in the sanction order. Admittedly, respondent No.1 was permitted to replace the old existing roofs of the ground floor and first floor. The replacement of the said roofs by RCC slabs without safety measures would have resulted in the violation of the sanction order. The construction of the pillars from ground level on which the roofs have been replaced by RCC slabs are squarely covered by the condition no.8 of the sanction order. The replacement of the said roofs by RCC slabs without safety measures would have resulted in the violation of the sanction order. The construction of the pillars from ground level on which the roofs have been replaced by RCC slabs are squarely covered by the condition no.8 of the sanction order. Thus, the construction of pillars on which roofs have been replaced, cannot be said to be in violation of sanction order. The Tribunal has dealt with the issue meticulously and on sound reasoning. There is no infirmity, factual or legal committed by the Tribunal while setting aside the demolition order. 9. The next argument of counsel for petitioner is that respondent No.1 has started the construction after expiry of the period prescribed in the sanction order. In order to appreciate this argument, the violation alleged in the notice dated 16-7-2007 is relevant which is reproduced below: - “……….the unauthorized construction of filling of pillars after dismantle of walls at Pacca Danga, Jammu without proper permission….” 10. Thus, the only objection of petitioner was that the filling of pillars was not permitted. Such a construction as has been held herein above and also by the Tribunal, was covered by the sanction order itself. Having said so, show-cause notice and demolition order are not based on the ground that aforesaid construction was raised after the period stipulated in the sanction order. Petitioner has neither laid the foundation of the aforesaid argument the moment it issued show cause notice nor thereafter when it issued order of demolition. That being the position, such an argument cannot be permitted to be made use of in the instant petition. 11. Subsection (1) of Section 7 of the Act, makes a provision for issuing a show-cause notice by the authority in respect of erection and re-erection of any building without the permission or in contravention of any condition subject to which any permission has been granted. Subsection (3) of Section 7 provides for issuance of demolition order in case concerned person fails to submit reply to show-cause notice or authority is satisfied that such construction is being raised without permission or in contravention of the permission. Thus, the authority under Sub Section 1 of Section 7 has to indicate the nature of the violation in the show cause notice. Thus, the authority under Sub Section 1 of Section 7 has to indicate the nature of the violation in the show cause notice. The purpose behind the aforesaid provision is to provide an opportunity to concerned person to explain alleged violation. The authority can pass an order under Subsection 3 only on the basis of the ground as stated in the show-cause notice. The order of demolition, therefore, cannot be passed on the ground, which was never indicated in show-cause notice and for which no opportunity was given to concerned person. It is settled principle of law that unless the foundation of the case is made out in the show cause notice, the party cannot be allowed to argue the point not raised therein. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise Bhavneshwar v. M/s Champdany Industry Ltd reported in 2009 (8) Supreme – 345, has settled the law on the aforesaid point in the following lines: - “Apart from that, the point on Rule 3 which has been argued by the learned counsel for the Revenue was not part of its case in the show cause notice. It is well settled that unless the foundation of the case is made out in the show cause notice, the Revenue cannot in court argue the case not made out in its show cause notice.” 12. The aforesaid pronouncement of law is complete answer to the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. For all what has been discussed above, there is no infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed along with connected MP(s).