ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the impugned notice No. 643 dated 23.1.2018 Annexure P-8 issued by the respondent No. 2 on behalf of respondent No. 1 and to restrain the respondents from demolishing and interfering with the property belongs to the petitioner situated at 100, Samvid Nagar, Kanadiya Road, Indore. Any other direction if deemed fit by the Court may also be asked for. 2. On perusal of the facts of the case, it appears that a complaint was made on C.M. Helpline bearing No. 3690857. On receiving the said complaint by respondent No. 2, he issued a notice on 22.4.2017 to the petitioner asking the construction permission and the document of ownership otherwise action as per M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (in short “M.C. Act”) as well as Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012 (in short “Rules of 2012”) may be taken against him. By filing some documents along with rejoinder Annexure P-10, it is said the complaint was enquired by the competent authority and it was closed for the reasons specified in Annexure P-10. After about eight months, vide Annexure P-8, a notice dated 23.1.2018 was again issued by respondent No. 2 in reference to the same complaint alleging that the construction which is being raised by the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of M.C. Act as well as Rules of 2012. However, reply was sought from petitioner within the time so specified in notice removing the said construction. Petitioner submitted the reply to the said notice Annexure P-9 and thereafter filed this petition seeking direction as specified herein above. 3. The respondent/Corporation has filed its reply inter alia contending that the petitioner is raising construction illegally in absence of grant of development permission under section 30 of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (in short be called as “Adhiniyam”) from the office of Town and Country Planning. It is further stated that the unauthorized construction raised by the petitioner is in direct contravention of rule 12 of the Rules of 2012. It is also said that the petitioner has raised unauthorized construction in excess from the land of his ownership which amounts to encroachment. The photographs have also been filed in this regard. It is further stated that the unauthorized construction raised by the petitioner is in direct contravention of rule 12 of the Rules of 2012. It is also said that the petitioner has raised unauthorized construction in excess from the land of his ownership which amounts to encroachment. The photographs have also been filed in this regard. It is also said that the petitioner is raising construction of five floors i.e. basement + ground + three floors without any building permission. Even if the colony is illegal/unauthorized then an entire mechanism is provided for regularization whereupon building permission may be granted after regularization. However, unauthorized construction of five floors cannot be permitted to sustain legally under the M.C. Act. In view of the aforesaid, it is urged that the notice has rightly been issued and the representation submitted by the petitioner has already been rejected, therefore, the action taken by the authorities is in conformity to law. In para-11, it is urged that the scope of judicial review in such matters are limited, therefore, interference is not warranted. 4. After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, undisputedly, the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh has framed the rules which are known as Madhya Pradesh Municipal (Compounding of offence of Construction of Buildings, Fees and Conditions) rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Compounding Rules, 2016”). Under these rules, in case any building is constructed unauthorizedly without permission, compounding of such offence is permissible towards such construction of building in excess to the permission as granted by the Corporation. In reference to Rule 3 and proviso to rule 5, it is urged that compounding is permissible even if the building is constructed without permission of the competent authority. In case any application for compounding is submitted to which the compounding is ordered, on deposit of the said amount, it would be deemed to be permission granted under the provisions of M.C. Act as well as under the provisions of Adhiniyam and Rules and By-laws made thereunder. In such circumstances, prior to issuing a subsequent show cause notice, the authorities must have applied their mind and also exercised the discretion for the purpose of compounding of building, if raised without permission. Without taking such recourse, issuance of notice is not permissible. In such circumstances, prior to issuing a subsequent show cause notice, the authorities must have applied their mind and also exercised the discretion for the purpose of compounding of building, if raised without permission. Without taking such recourse, issuance of notice is not permissible. Relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Nagda Municipality, Nagda v. ITC Limited reported in 2007(3) MPHT 309 (DB), it is urged that in the case where compounding may be possible, without taking such recourse, demolition should not be done. However, it is urged that the notice issued by the respondents may be set aside and permission may be granted to the petitioner to apply for compounding and such application be considered by the authorities in accordance with the Compounding Rules, 2016. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the compounding is only permissible subject to the conditions as enumerated under section 308-A of the M.C. Act. In the present case, construction is being raised in an unauthorized colony to which permission has not been granted by the office of Town and Country Planning (T&CP), therefore, without permission of T&CP, Municipal Corporation cannot compound the construction raised by the petitioner. In such circumstances, notice Annexure P/8 has rightly been issued. 6. After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, now looking to the arguments as advanced, the case is based upon the Compounding Rules, 2016 and without application of mind to foresee whether compounding is permissible or not is required to be seen prior to demolition of the construction. On careful perusal of the record as well as the Compounding Rules, 2016 produced before the Court, certain provisions are required to be referred. Rule 3, rule 5 and rule 6 are relevant for the purpose to determine the question of law, therefore, they are reproduced as under : “3. On careful perusal of the record as well as the Compounding Rules, 2016 produced before the Court, certain provisions are required to be referred. Rule 3, rule 5 and rule 6 are relevant for the purpose to determine the question of law, therefore, they are reproduced as under : “3. Compounding of offences of construction of building constructed without permission - The competent Authority, on receipt of an application received from a person to regularize the construction of his building constructed without permission or by violating the permission granted, may compound the offence by imposing a compounding fees as prescribed in rule 5 subject of the conditions mentioned under section 308-A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (No.23 of 1956) and under section 187-A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (No.37 of 1961).” 4. xxxxxxx 5. Compounding Fees – The fees for construction of buildings constructed for different uses in the areas classified under clause (b) and (c) of sub-rule (3) of rule 21 of Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012, shall be as under :- S. No. Type of Construction Compounding Fees in case of construction not to be the limit of permitted F.A.R. and in open background areas Compounding Fees in case of limit of maximum 10 percent  of unauthorized construction made in open background areas or more than prescribed F.A.R. (1) (2) (3) (4) (i) A building which is intended to be used as residence fully. Five times of the chargeable / license fees for built-up area mentioned in rule21(3)(b) and 21(3)(c). 5 percent of the value of built-up area without permission as per rate of sale of land determined by Stamps collector. (ii) A building which is intended to be used for shop, store house, factory or trade or running any business or for other commercial and industrial purpose. Six times of the chargeable/license fees for built-up area mentioned in rule 21(3)(b) and 21(3)(c). 6 percent of the value of built-up area without permission as per rate of sale of landdetermined by Stamps Collector. (iii) A building which is intended to be used for as administration part in a factory. Five times of the chargeable/license fees for built-up area mentioned in rule 21(3)(b) and 21(3)(c). 5 percent of the value of built-up area without permission as per rate of sale of land determined by Stamps collector. (iii) A building which is intended to be used for as administration part in a factory. Five times of the chargeable/license fees for built-up area mentioned in rule 21(3)(b) and 21(3)(c). 5 percent of the value of built-up area without permission as per rate of sale of land determined by Stamps collector. (iv) A building which is intended to be used as cinema theater Six times of the chargeable / license fees for built-up area mentioned in rule 21(3)(b) and 21(3)(c). 6 percent of the value of built-up area without permission as per rate of sale of and determined by Stamps Collector. (v) A building which is intended to be used as shop and residence. Six times of the chargeable / license fees for built-up area mentioned in rule 21(3)(b) and 21(3)(c). 6 percent of the value of built-up area without permission as per rate of sale of land determined by Stamps Collector. (vi) A building which is intended to be used for the social, religious, cultural, academic purpose and such type of building and for any other purpose for which there is no specifically provision. Five times of the chargeable/license fees for built-up area mentioned in rule 21(3)(b) and 21(3)(c). 5 percent of the value of built-up area without permission as per rate of sale of land determined by Stamps collector. Provided that, where entire building has been constructed without the permission from competent authority, the competent for permissible built up area, (in which open area, Floor area ration, Land-cover, height etc. is included) the fees mentioned in column (3) shall be payable, and for limit of permissible 10 percent fees prescribed in column (4) shall be payable. Provided further that if construction of the building has been made beyond the permissible floor area ratio or more than 10% of the permissible floor area ratio, the compounding shall be made only after removing or cause to be removed the additional construction. 6. Compounding made under sub rule (b) of rule 3, shall be deemed as permission granted under the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 and the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and rules and by-laws made there under.” 7. 6. Compounding made under sub rule (b) of rule 3, shall be deemed as permission granted under the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 and the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and rules and by-laws made there under.” 7. As per rule 3, it is apparent that compounding of the offence is permissible by imposing a compounding fees as prescribed under rule 5 subject of the conditions mentioned under section 308-A of the M.C. Act. section 308-A starts with a non-obstante clause; it apply to the offences of constructing the buildings without permission as well as contrary to the permission granted. If the conditions as specified in (a) to (h) are observed, in the present case, condition (a) and (b) would apply thereby the compounding of the offence is permissible if the construction does not affect the regular building line. In the said context if proviso to rule 5 is visualized whereby in a case where entire building has been constructed without the permission from the competent authority, the built up area (in which open area, Floor area ratio, Land-cover, height etc. is included) the fees mentioned in column (3) of rule 5 shall be payable, and for limit of permissible 10 percent fees prescribed in column (4) shall be payable. In case of construction of the building is beyond the permissible floor area ratio or more than 10% of the permissible floor area ratio, the compounding shall be made only after removing or cause to be removed the additional construction. Rule 3 provides for compounding of offences of construction of building constructed without permission subject to conditions mentioned under section 308-A of the M.C. Act. In case the compounding is made as per sub-rule (b) of rule 3 then it shall be deemed as permission granted under the M.C. Act, Municipalities Act and Adhiniyam of 1973 and rules and by-laws made thereunder. Meaning thereby in case the construction is being raised by the petitioner in authorized colony, without permission, the application for compounding is maintainable and the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that because the colony has not been approved under the provisions of Adhiniyam of 1973 and rules and bylaws made thereunder, is totally misplaced. 8. Meaning thereby in case the construction is being raised by the petitioner in authorized colony, without permission, the application for compounding is maintainable and the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondents that because the colony has not been approved under the provisions of Adhiniyam of 1973 and rules and bylaws made thereunder, is totally misplaced. 8. On perusal of the record of the case, it is apparent that one complaint was made to C.M. Helpline against the petitioner and on the basis of the said complaint, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.4.2017, thereafter, the reply was filed and enquiry was conducted by the respondents. In the said enquiry, on 11.5.2017 wherein proceedings to the said complaint were recorded is relevant for the purpose, therefore, it is reproduced as under :- “ 11 May 2017 f'kdk;r dk iquewZY;kadu dj iqu% fujkdj.k dj mPp Lrj ij ekU; gsrq izsf"kr dj fn;k x;k gSA bankSj fodkl ;kstuk ds izko/kkuksa vUrxZr 300 eh- dh pkSMkbZ esa ck/kd fuekZ.k dks gVkus dh dk;Zokgh dh xbZ mlds i'pkr 'ks"k cps Hkkx ij Hkou LokfeRoks n~okjk fuekZ.k fd;k tk jgk gSA pqdh iz'uk/khu {ks= voS/k cLrh ds {ks=kUrxZr gksus ls uxj fuxe n~okjk Hkou vuqKk tkjh ugha dh tkrh gS ,slh fLFkfr esa lHkh Hkou LokfeRoksa n~okjk lM+d lhek ds ckn 'ks"k cps Hkkx ij vius&vius fuekZ.k fd, tk jgs gSA fdlh O;fDr fo'ks"k dh f'kdk;r ij ,d Hkou Lokeh ds fo#) dk;Zokgh ugha tk ldrh gSA f'kdk;r lekIr djus dk vuqjksèk gSAÞ Thereafter, the said complaint was dropped, the relevant observations to that effect are as under :- ßfujkdj.k fujkdj.k mfpr gS f'kdk;r dh fLFkfr f'kdk;r dks can dj fn;k x;k gSÞ Therefore, it is clear that the complaint made on C.M. Helpline has already been dropped by respondent No. 2, therefore, he was having no occasion to make a reference of the said complaint in the impugned notice Annexure P-8 dated 23.1.2018. It is to observe here that if the complaint made to C.M. Helpline is dropped, further making reference again in the notice Annexure P-8 that petitioner is raising construction is contrary to the provisions of Compounding Rules, 2016, however, it was expected to remove such construction. 9. It is to observe here that if the complaint made to C.M. Helpline is dropped, further making reference again in the notice Annexure P-8 that petitioner is raising construction is contrary to the provisions of Compounding Rules, 2016, however, it was expected to remove such construction. 9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, it is apparent that if the construction was raised by the petitioner without permission and if petitioner applies for compounding of the same, without considering such application on merits in terms of the Compounding Rules, 2016, the demolition ought not to be made by the authorities. At present, the notice of demolition has been issued, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to apply for compounding of the offence or to construct the house without permission. It is to observe here that even if the house is constructed without permission, compounding may be applied for and such compounding may be permissible looking to the conditions (a) and (b) of section 308-A of the M.C. Act and rule 5 of the Compounding Rules, 2016. Therefore, at present, notice Annexure P-8 dated 23.1.2018 is hereby quashed. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is allowed and the impugned notice Annexure P-8 is hereby quashed. On submitting an application by the petitioner within 15 days from today in terms of Compounding Rules, 2016, such application shall be considered and decided by the competent authority within a period of two months. Disposed of accordingly.