JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. 1. An order dated December 16, 2009 passed by Howrah Municipal Corporation is under challenge in the present writ petition. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are guilty of unauthorized constructions. She submits that, a writ petition was filed by her client being W.P. No. 17013 (W) of 2007. Such writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order dated October 29, 2009 after noticing the various provisions of the Howrah Municipal Act, 1980. It set aside a decision of Howrah Municipal Corporation permitting regularization. She submits that, by the impugned order, the Howrah Municipal Corporation has repeated its earlier stand and has regularized the unauthorized construction. She refers to Rule 61 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1991 and submits that, the nature of unauthorized construction does not come within the purview of such a rule to be regularized. 2. The respondent No. 7 is represented. 3. None appears on behalf of the other respondents. 4. It appears from the records that, the petitioner had initially complained of unauthorized construction made by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to Howrah Municipal Corporation. Howrah Municipal Corporation had passed the order regularizing the same. Assailing such decision, a writ petition was filed being W.P. No. 17013 (W) of 2007. Such writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order dated October 29, 2009 by quashing such order of regularizing and directing the Howrah Municipal Corporation to decide the matter afresh. Howrah Municipal Corporation has since quashed the impugned order dated December 16, 2009 purporting the Act in terms of such order of the High Court. It has proceeded to regularize the unauthorized construction on the basis of Rule 61 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1991. Rule 61 of the Rules of 1991 is as follows:- 61. Deviations during execution of work.-(1) If during erection of building or execution of work any departure from the sanctioned plan is intended to be made by way of internal alterations or external additions which do not violate the provisions of the Act and these rules, revised plan showing the intended deviations along with relevant documents required under these rules shall be submitted to the Commissioner who may sanction or refuse to sanction under these rules. 5. 5. Rule 61 of the Rules of 1991 requires apart from anything else, a revised plan showing the intended deviation along with relevant documents to be submitted by the person undertaking the construction. The impugned order does not disclose that, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had even endeavoured to comply with Rule 61 by submitting the relevant documents. Consequently, the decision of the Howrah Municipal Corporation to invoke the Rule 61 of the Rules of 1991 cannot be sustained as it did not have the requisite material before it to invoke such rules. 6. In such circumstances, the impugned decision dated December 16, 2009 is quashed. 7. Howrah Municipal Corporation will proceed to take appropriate measures under Section 177 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 in accordance with law. 8. W. P. 6064 (W) of 2010 is disposed of without any order as to costs. Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the formalities.