JUDGMENT : 1. Learned advocates appearing for the parties have jointly requested that looking to the issue involved in the present petition, the same may be disposed of at an admission stage and, hence with the consent of the parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. Rule. Learned advocate, Mr. Satyam Chhaya waives service of notice of rule for respondent –Corporation. 3. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs, “(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased be issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus holding and declaring that the notice u/s 267, 260(1) and 260(2) produced at Annexure­E, F & H respectively are illegal and void and the same be quashed and set aside and the injunction issued vide notice u/s 267 of GPMC Act be lifted and be further pleased to permit the petitioner to carry out the repairing work as per the permission granted by the authority u/s 264 of the GPMC Act. (B) That in the course of execution of work, the respondent Corporation or the Police Authority be restrained from interfering with the same because, the work which is under execution and which is to be executed if not done, it is still dangerous to the public at large and therefore, the same be allowed to be carried further without any obstruction. (C) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the notices u/s 267, 260(1) and 260(2) of the GPMC Act (shown at Annexure­E, F & H respectively) issued by the respondent Corporation and be further pleased to permit the petitioner to carry out the repairing work as per the rules and regulations and GDCR. (D) xxx xxx xxx (E) xxx xxx xxx.” 4. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. M.B. Gandhi assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Chinmay Gandhi appearing for the petitioner and learned advocate, Mr. Satyam Chhaya appearing for the respondent – Corporation. 5. (D) xxx xxx xxx (E) xxx xxx xxx.” 4. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. M.B. Gandhi assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Chinmay Gandhi appearing for the petitioner and learned advocate, Mr. Satyam Chhaya appearing for the respondent – Corporation. 5. The factual matrix of the present case is as under : 5.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing House No.389 situated at Survey No.704, Sheet No.26 of Kalupur – 2, which is located in Haja Patel Pol, Tangsha Road, Kalupur. The said house is more than 70 years old and the property in question is in a dilapidated condition and, hence, repairing work is required. Hence, the petitioner issued notice under Sections 253 and 254 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as “GPMC Act” for short) on 25.06.2019 to the Deputy Estate Officer, Central Zone. In the said notice, the petitioner has intimated the respondent authority about the condition of the property in question. It was also informed that the said property is located nearby the public road and in case of collapse of the property in question, it is dangerous to the life of public at large. It was also informed that repairing of the property in question is urgently required. After intimating the respondent – Corporation about the condition of the property in question as stated above, the petitioner started repairing work. The petitioner wanted to properly repair the building on the ground floor and for that purpose, the plinth level was increased to 0.45 mtrs., which was originally about 10 cms. It is stated that the original plinth was practically on the floor level and, therefore in rainy season, huge water is coming inside the house. It is further stated that the petitioner wanted to have ceiling of the ground floor i.e. bottom of the first floor as well as of that of second floor and, therefore, same were removed. The floor on the first and second floors were made of wooden beams and, therefore, same were removed. The petitioner, thereafter, inserted horizontal iron beams as per permissible GDCR. It is also stated that as per GDCR, Schedule – I lays down Regulation 3.2, which provides for the list of works, which do not require development permission. The floor on the first and second floors were made of wooden beams and, therefore, same were removed. The petitioner, thereafter, inserted horizontal iron beams as per permissible GDCR. It is also stated that as per GDCR, Schedule – I lays down Regulation 3.2, which provides for the list of works, which do not require development permission. 5.2 It is further stated by the petitioner that the respondent – Corporation issued notice under Section 267 of the GPMC Act, whereby the respondent – Corporation has instructed the petitioner to stop execution of the work and, thereafter, the notice under Section 260(1) of the GPMC Act is also issued on 17.09.2019. In the notice issued under Section 267 of the GPMC Act, the respondent – Corporation has stated that without prior permission of the respondent – Corporation, the existing ground floor to second floor in existing slab, horizontal and vertical T­ Girders are inserted and alleged that height of the floor is also changed. After the receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the Estate Officer on 21.09.2019. In the said reply, it is pointed out that no vertical girders are used and only horizontal girders for flooring purpose are used. It is also pointed out that the said work is permissible under the GDCR, for which, no permission is required. It is also stated that inspite of the fact that no permission is required, the petitioner gave notice under Sections 253 and 254 of the GPMC Act to the respondent – Corporation and permission under Section 264 of the GPMC Act for reparation was granted. It is also stated that the petitioner has also shown willingness to produce the plan for the aforesaid repairing work. Inspite of that, the notice under Section 260(2) of the GPMC Act was issued by the respondent – Corporation. 5.3 The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the aforesaid notices issued by the respondent – Corporation by filing present petition. 6. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Gandhi would contend that only horizontal girders are placed for repairing of the floor and no vertical girders are used and as the wooden beams are removed, only horizontal girders are used for repairing the floor position. It is also contended that permission of the respondent – Corporation for such repairing work is not required. Learned Counsel has referred to relevant provision contained in GDCR. It is also contended that permission of the respondent – Corporation for such repairing work is not required. Learned Counsel has referred to relevant provision contained in GDCR. In support of his contention, it is further submitted that as per permissible GDCR, repairing work has been carried out. 7. Learned Counsel would further submit that the petitioner has also requested the Registered Structural Engineer to visit the premises in question and prepare report. Learned Counsel has referred to the said report of the Registered Structural Engineer, copy of which is produced on record at Page No.75C of the compilation. At this stage, learned Counsel has also referred to the averments made in the affidavit­in­rejoinder and submitted that the concerned officer of the respondent – Corporation filed two affidavits in PIL No.265/2013 and PIL No.70/2013, wherein it is admitted that as per GDCR and Regulation 3.2, there is no need for getting any permission from the respondent – Corporation when the building is to be repaired or when the reparation of building is undertaken in light of the notice under Section 254 of the GPMC Act. 8. Learned Counsel, therefore, urged that the impugned notices issued by the respondent – Corporation be quashed and set aside and thereby the respondent – Corporation be directed to permit the petitioner to carry out construction as per the provisions of the GDCR. 9. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mr. Satyam Chhaya has referred to the affidavit­in­reply filed by the concerned officer of the respondent – Corporation and, thereafter, submitted that inspite of issuance of the prohibited notices to the petitioner, he had not stopped the construction and in fact, he carried out further construction. It is submitted that as per Section 264 of the GPMC Act, necessary measures for securing damage part is permissible, however, it does not confer any right to make new construction even by increasing the height of the building. It is submitted that the petitioner has started unauthorized construction even by increasing height of the plinth as well as floor, which is contrary to the provision of the GDCR. Learned advocate referred to the photographs produced on record at Page No.61 of the compilation. It is, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed. 10. It is submitted that the petitioner has started unauthorized construction even by increasing height of the plinth as well as floor, which is contrary to the provision of the GDCR. Learned advocate referred to the photographs produced on record at Page No.61 of the compilation. It is, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed. 10. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it has emerged that the premises in question is more than 70 years old and is in a dilapidated condition. The petitioner, therefore, informed the respondent – Corporation by issuing notice under Sections 253 and 254 of the GPMC Act on 25.06.2019 that the repairing of the said building is required. It is also pointed out that the property in question is located nearby the public road and, therefore in case of collapse, it is dangerous to the life of the public at large. It is also reflected from the record that the respondent – Corporation, thereafter, issued notice under Section 264 of the GPMC Act, whereby the petitioner was permitted to carry out repairing work as stated in the said notice, copy of which is produced at Page No.37 of the compilation. 11. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the original plinth of the property in question was practically on the floor level and, therefore, height of the ground floor is increased. It is the further case of the petitioner that renovation was started from the top floor and so far as portions of second floor and first floor are concerned, slab has been completed and as per GDCR, minimum height between each floor is 2.9 mtrs. It is also the case of the petitioner that Regulation provides minimum height and no maximum height is provided. In the present case, the petitioner has maintained height of 2.9 mtrs. and as the plinth of the building is to be put up by 0.45 mtrs., there would be nominal difference in the height of the floor. Even T­girders are used and horizontal girders have been inserted into for supporting the walls and it is the specific case of the petitioner that they have not used any vertical girders. 12. and as the plinth of the building is to be put up by 0.45 mtrs., there would be nominal difference in the height of the floor. Even T­girders are used and horizontal girders have been inserted into for supporting the walls and it is the specific case of the petitioner that they have not used any vertical girders. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts of the present case, the provision contained in Regulation 3.2 of Schedule – I of GDCR is required to be kept in mind. As per the said provision, list of the building works that do not require any development permission is stated, which includes changing roof tiles, roof type, increasing the height of the wall to change the slope of the roof, repairing the roof without increasing the existing room height. Thus in my view, the permission of the Corporation for the aforesaid purpose would not be necessary. Even otherwise, from the undertaking given by the petitioner, copy of which is produced on record at Page No.75A of the compilation, the petitioner has shown willingness to obtain permission from the respondent – Corporation and he has shown willingness to pay administrative charges or penalty. It is further revealed from the record that the Registered Structural Engineer has given report in favour of the petitioner, copy of which is produced on record at Page No.75C of the compilation. 13. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that the petitioner has given reply dated 21.09.2019 after the receipt of the notice issued by the respondent – Corporation under Section 260(1) of the GPMC Act. In the notice issued under Section 260(2) of the GPMC Act, it is observed by the respondent – Corporation that the petitioner has not given any explanation/ reply, copy of the said notice issued under Section 260(2) of the GPMC Act is produced on record at Page No.49 of the compilation. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondent – Corporation has not even considered the reply given by the petitioner and, therefore, it is nothing but a non­ application of mind on the part of the concerned officer of the respondent – Corporation. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the the present petition stands allowed. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the the present petition stands allowed. The impugned notices dated 17.09.2019, 19.09.2019 and 24.09.2019 produced at Annexure­E, F & H respectively are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is permitted to carry out the repairing work as permissible under the provision of the GDCR and if any further permission of the respondent – Corporation is required as stated by the petitioner in his undertaking given before this Court, the petitioner shall obtain such permission prior to carrying out construction work. 14. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.