ORDER : 1. All the petitions question the identical application for stay filed in the respective appeals which has come to be dismissed on identical grounds and hence though the petitioners are different, in so far as there were different appeals as the order passed is identical, the Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common order. The appeals have been filed by different petitioners with respect to different properties challenging the orders passed under Section 321(3) of the of the Karnataka Municipality Corporation Act (for short ‘the KMC Act’) which however is identical in all the matters. 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 17.10.2018 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 837/2018 whereby IA-1 filed under Regulation 13 of the Karnataka Appellate Regulations (‘the Regulations’ for brevity) seeking for stay of the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Karnataka Municipality Corporation Act (for short ‘the KMC Act’) had come to be dismissed, has filed the present petition. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that he had obtained a plan for the construction of industrial shed and had put up construction in accordance with the plan. It is stated that on 6.3.2018 an order under Section 321(2) of the KMC Act had come to be passed detailing the nature of deviation as follows:- Details of deviations made with reference to the sanctioned plan L.P. No. Ad.com/SUT/ 1384/2013-14, dated 21-03-2014 (The Details of the deviation is the same in respect of plan L.P. No. Ad.com/SUT/ 1383/2013-14, date 21-03-2014) S. No. Description Set back as per Sanctioned Plan (in Mtr) Set back as per actual (in Mtr) Deviation width (in Mtr) Deviation percentage Remarks Action should be taken by owner 1. Front 3.30 0.00 3.30 100% This deviated portion width should be removed 2. Backside 2.20 0.00 2.20 100% -do- 3. Left 1.00 0.00 1.00 100% -do- 4. Right 1.00 0.00 1.00 100% -do- 4. The petitioner was called upon to remove the deviations and was also afforded an opportunity to show cause as to why the said order was not to be confirmed and that if the authority were not to be satisfied by such explanation, the confirmatory order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act would be passed. The petitioner was called upon to remove the deviations and was also afforded an opportunity to show cause as to why the said order was not to be confirmed and that if the authority were not to be satisfied by such explanation, the confirmatory order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act would be passed. Subsequently, an order under Section 323(3) of the KMC Act had come to be passed on 26.9.2018 confirming the provisional order and calling upon the petitioner to remove the construction carried out in deviation of the sanction plan within a period of 7 days. The petitioner is said to have filed his objections to the notice that was issued earlier by the authorities. 5. The petitioner has challenged the said order of confirmation passed under Section 321 (3) of the KMC Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 443 (A) of the KMC Act. The petitioner had also sought for stay of the operation and execution of the order of confirmation dated 26.9.2018 by way of an application under Regulation 13 of the Regulations. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal had taken up the application filed under Regulation 13 for consideration. The BBMP which had entered caveat in the said proceedings, on being notified, had filed their objections to the application and had also furnished records pertaining to the order passed under Section 321(3) of the Act. An application was also filed by the impleading applicant who was sought to be impleaded in the said proceedings. 6. After having heard counsel on both the side, the Tribunal after referring to the deviation as mentioned in the provisional order while recording a finding that the BBMP had followed the procedure contemplated under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation ACT, 1966 in serving notice and passing orders under Sections 308, 321(1), (2), (3) of the KMC Act, proceeded to dismiss the application after observing that both the parties “submitted readiness to cooperate to decide the case early.” At the time the application came to be heard, the BBMP authority had placed all relevant records before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. 7. The BBMP having entered the caveat before this Court has filed detailed statement of objections on the behalf of respondent Nos. 7. The BBMP having entered the caveat before this Court has filed detailed statement of objections on the behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and has stated that the spot inspection that was conducted by the officials pursuant to the complaint had revealed deviation morefully referred to in the provisional order which is contrary to the set back required to be maintained as per the sanction plan. It has also been asserted that notice has been served personally as well as by registered post and subsequently by way of affixture and a panchanama has been drawn in that regard. It has also referred to the illegalities as regards the records relating to title. 8. Heard counsel on both the sides. The counsel for the petitioner has withdrawn W.P. No. 47921/2018 filed against the order passed in KAT Appeal No. 839/2018 and states that his submissions would be confined to the other Writ Petitions which are disposed of by this common order. 9. Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that there has been no due service of the provisional order and that after having come to know of the provisional order voluntarily the explanation under Annexure-J has been filed. It is also contended that once the appeal has been entertained, the interim order of stay ought to be granted as a matter of course. It is also contended that there has been no violation as such, other contentions are required to be considered at the time of disposal of the appeal. 10. Sri. Prabhuling K. Navadagi, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent- BBMP contends that there is no illegality as such in the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and that no ground is made out for interference and further states that the reply at Annexure-J is bald and an evasive reply and there is no specific denial as regards the deviations that had been pointed out by the provisional order and that the deviation is shown to be 100% and hence no case is made out for interference in the impugned order. 11. 11. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by its detailed order has rejected IA-1 filed for interim stay and has recorded that there has been adherence to the procedure under the provisions of the KMC Act in serving notice and passing orders under Sections 308, 321(1), (2) & (3) of the KMC Act as found in para 20. The Tribunal having considered the material on record has also opined that it would not be appropriate to express any opinion on the merits of the case or the validity of the documents relied. It is also recorded that both parties have expressed readiness to co-operate and decide the case early. During the course of argument, it is also been submitted that the parties are ready to go ahead with the matter on merits. The scope of enquiry while looking in to the validity of the order passed under 321(1) and 321(2) of the KMC Act would be limited to order passed in the light to alleged violation by carrying out construction in deviation in sanction plan and building bye laws. The power to grant an order of stay of the proceedings is found in regulation 13 of the Appellate Tribunal Regulations which specifies that there would not be any order of stay only by reason of any appeal or revision having been preferred. In the present case, the appellate authority while exercising its discretion on the basis of the material placed before it has passed the impugned order. While no illegality warranting interference in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal has been made out and merely because the petitioner makes out an argument that the eventual order passed on IA-1 could be different is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 12. Merely because a different view is possible, the same cannot be a ground to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the discretionary orders passed by the Tribunal. The Writ Court cannot substitute its own discretion in place of the judicial discretion in the absence of error of jurisdiction. No detailed consideration is warranted as the same would result in recording a finding which would not be appropriate as the matter is yet to be taken up for final disposal by the Tribunal. 13. The Writ Court cannot substitute its own discretion in place of the judicial discretion in the absence of error of jurisdiction. No detailed consideration is warranted as the same would result in recording a finding which would not be appropriate as the matter is yet to be taken up for final disposal by the Tribunal. 13. It is also appropriate to observe that once the prayer for stay has been rejected in the fitness of things it would be appropriate that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal takes up the matter and disposes it of as expeditiously as possible within a period not later than four weeks from today. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of in the light of the observations made above.