JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J —Petitioner laid challenge to the notice issued by the H.P. State Pollution Control Board, "Him-Perivesh" Bhawan, Dharamshala, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action for not complying with the various provisions of law be not taken. 2. On 23rd June, 2017, when this matter came up for hearing on the asking of the petitioner, this Court passed the following order:- "CWP No. 1370 of 2017 Notice. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General, Ms. Nishi Goel, Mr. Amit Singh Chandel and Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocates waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. Petitioner undertakes to file an affidavit stating therein; (a) the extent of construction permissible as per the sanctioned plan; (b) the extent of construction actually carried out by them on the spot; (c) deviation made in actual construction as compared to the sanctioned plan; (d) the extent of construction which is otherwise compoundable as per the existing Municipal laws, more specifically under Section 31-A of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act; (e) the extent of construction which is otherwise not compoundable; (f) furnish an undertaking to this Court that in the event of the vires of the amendment incorporated in the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act being struck down or otherwise, shall demolish the construction raised in excess of the sanctioned plans and beyond compoundable limits; and (g) comply with all other statutory Rules/Regulations/ Bye-laws under the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. List on 30th June, 2017. CMP No. 4810 of 2017 Notice in the aforesaid terms. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we direct that till the next date of hearing, no coercive action shall be taken pursuant to communication dated 15.05.2017 (Annexure P-1) ." 3. Pursuant to such directions, the writ petitioner filed his personal affidavit, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- "That the petitioner undertakes to file the affidavit to the following effects:- A The extent of construction permissible as per the sanctioned plan. The extent of construction which was permissible as per sanctioned plan was 131.54 sq. meters. B The extent of construction actually carried out by them on the spot; The extent of construction actually carried out by the petitioner is 436.25 sq. meters. The extent of construction which was permissible as per sanctioned plan was 131.54 sq. meters. B The extent of construction actually carried out by them on the spot; The extent of construction actually carried out by the petitioner is 436.25 sq. meters. C Deviation made in the actual construction as compared to the sanction plan. The deviation made in the actual construction as compare to the sanctioned plan is 304.71 sq. meters. D The extent of construction which is otherwise compoundable as per the existing Municipal Laws, more specially under Section 31-A of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act; The extent of construction which is otherwise compoundable as per the existing Municipal laws, more specifically under Section 31-A of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act is 13.15 sq. meters. E The extent of construction which is otherwise not compoundable; The extent of construction which is otherwise not compoundable is 291.55 sq. meters as per unamended Act. F Furnish an undertaking to this Court that in the event of the vires of the amendment incorporated in the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act being struck down or otherwise, Shall demolish the construction raised in the excess of the sanction plans and beyond compoundable limits; The deponent undertakes that in the event of the vires of the amendment incorporated in the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act being struck down or otherwise shall close the construction raised in excess of the sanction plans and beyond compoundable limits. G Comply with all other statutory Rules/Regulations/Bye-laws under the provisions of the water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The Deponent undertakes that he will comply with all other statutory Rules/Regulations/Bye-laws under the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 4. We notice that the extent of construction carried out by the writ petitioner than the sanctioned plan is almost more than 300%, whereas the petitioner was entitled to raise construction in terms of the sanctioned plan to the extent of 131.54 square meters, he raised construction to the extent of 436.25 square meters. Undisputedly, such construction raised is even beyond the compoundable limits stipulated under the provisions of the H.P. Municipal Act, 1994 and Town and Country Planning Act, 1977. 5. Undisputedly, such construction raised is even beyond the compoundable limits stipulated under the provisions of the H.P. Municipal Act, 1994 and Town and Country Planning Act, 1977. 5. We may also observe that several petitions of similar nature were filed and tagged together, which, as such, are also listed today. In all these petitions, the common thread being that there is violation of Municipal Laws and that, the construction raised, is in excess, ranging from 20% to 700%, from the sanctioned plans. In fact, in one case no plans stand sanctioned, yet massive construction raised. We have individually taken up all these cases and passed separate orders in each one of the cases. 6. It is not in dispute that petitioner has benefited and gained advantage out of the orders passed by this Court. The only ground on which the writ petition was filed that the authorities had failed to consider the applicability of the provisions of Section 31-B of the Town and Country Planning Act. 7. It is not in dispute that in a separate writ petition the vires of such provision came to be assailed and same has been held to be ultra vires in CWP No. 612 of 2017, titled as Abhimanyu Rathor Vs. State of H.P. and others decided on 22.12.2017. As such, the issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra and the petition needs to be dismissed with the petitioner''s undertaking to be enforced in accordance with law. 8. At this stage, Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, from the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition, which is permitted to be withdrawn subject to the petitioner''s depositing a sum of Rs.2.00 lac (rupees two lac only) , as costs to be deposited with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla 171 009. Petitioner undertakes to deposit the cost within a period of one week from today and affidavit of compliance be filed in the Registry of this Court within the same period, for which purpose the matter be listed before Registrar (Judicial) on 15.1.2018. In view of the above the writ petition is disposed of as having been withdrawn, so also pending application, if any. All interim order(s) , if any, stand vacated.