JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners essentially for challenging the legality and validity of an order dated 20.5.2019 passed by the Town Development Officer of the Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation. 2. The background of the facts is that the petitioners are owners of Shop Nos.29, 30, 31 and 32 in the basement and Shop Nos.55, 59, 100, 101 and 103 on the ground floor at Madhav Darshan Complex, Bhavnagar. In the basement area, there is a strong room, a storage area and an office. The petitioners were allotted Shop Nos.29 to 32 somewhere in the year 2001 and have been holding the same since then. Some construction was done in the basement area which came to be regularized upon payment of impact fee by virtue of an order dated 16.2.2016 passed by respondent – corporation. The receipt with regard to the impact fee of Rs.2,15,800/- is attached to the petition compilation. According to the petitioners, the plan covers the portion that was regularized upon payment of impact fee under the provisions of the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act, 2001 and also the original construction. According to the petitioners, under Clause 3.2, a Comprehensive General Development Control Regulations, 2017 (in short, ‘GDCR’) issued by Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Government of Gujarat, no development permission shall be required for re-building an existing wall and for certain other works specified in the said clause. In the first week of February, 2019, the petitioners took steps towards demolition of some portion of existing wall in the basement with a view to rebuild the walls in order to strengthen them and accordingly, on or about 11.2.2019, the demolition work began by the petitioners and by 20.2.2019, the walls which were intended to be re-built, were demolished and the substantial portion of the walls was re- built and the flooring was also removed and according to the petitioners, from 11.2.2019 to 20.2.2019, no objection was raised by either of the respondents nor by anybody. 2.1 According to the petitioners, some vested interest in the respondents to make a representation on 20.2.2019 objecting the petitioners carrying out the work and according to them, the said construction was unauthorized and the representation, according to the petitioners, was in the name of Madhav Darshan Non-Trading Association (for short ‘’the Association’). 2.1 According to the petitioners, some vested interest in the respondents to make a representation on 20.2.2019 objecting the petitioners carrying out the work and according to them, the said construction was unauthorized and the representation, according to the petitioners, was in the name of Madhav Darshan Non-Trading Association (for short ‘’the Association’). It further appears from the assertion of the petition that on that very day, when representation was filed i.e. on 20.2.2019, the orders were passed bearing Nos.24 and 39 in purported exercise of powers under Sections 260(1) and 267(1) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1948 (for short ‘the GPMC Act’) respectively and the Town Development Officer restrained the petitioners from carrying out any construction in the basement area on the basis that the construction was without permission. On 21.2.2019, the petitioners filed detailed objection against the said orders bearing Nos.24 and 39 dated 20.2.2019 and produced along with it, the approved plans, the necessary documents to indicate that regularization has already been done, impact fee has been paid and also indicated that in view of the provisions contained in GDCR, no development permission was necessary for re-building the existing walls and as such, it was specifically brought to the notice of the authority that petitioners are not carrying out any work which would not be in accordance with approved plan and the regularization. After detailed examination of the said explanation and the necessary documents and upon verification of approved plan, on 12.3.2019 the Town Development Officer appears to have conducted the site inspection and held specifically that petitioners were carrying out the renovation work as per the approved plan and as such, specifically withdrew the restraint order which was passed on 20.2.2019 passed by him. This order was made available to the petitioners at about 7.00 p.m. in the evening on 12.3.2019. This order was made available to the petitioners at about 7.00 p.m. in the evening on 12.3.2019. 2.2 According to the petitioners, some another representation was made to the authority in the name of Association again on the very next day i.e. on 13.3.2019 and surprisingly, according to the petitioners, within few hours, the very same officer i.e. Town Development Officer, who recalled specifically the earlier restrain order upon physical verification of site, passed another order on 14.3.2019 again restraining the petitioners from carrying on the construction by passing an order under Sections 260(1) and 267(1) of the GPMC Act respectively again and according to the petitioners, within few hours and less than 2 days, a complete U-turn was made by Town Development Officer despite specific site inspection on previous day. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved by the said decision dated 14.3.2019, constrained to approach the Court by way of filing petition being Special Civil Application No.6102 of 2019 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 3.5.2019 and in view of said order passed by the High Court, the petitioners after enclosing the order of the High Court, made representation on 6.5.2019, requesting the respondent – Commissioner to depute any officer for supervising the construction work on or before 8.5.2019. According to the petitioners, this order of the High Court was never challenged before the higher forum and it has attained finality. 2.3 The petitioners, vide letter dated 8.5.2019, again, requested the authority reiterating the request to appoint the officer with immediate effect since the construction work is voluntarily halted on account of not appointing an officer for supervising work. In addition to aforesaid repeated request in writing, the petitioners also met personally to the Commissioner on 10.5.2019 and explained the situation with all adequate material and pointed out specifically that the built up area which was existing is in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the area of construction to the extent of 56.67 sq. Mtrs. In the basement and 18.25 Sq. Mtrs. at the ground floor has already been regularized by virtue of an order dated 16.5.2019 passed by the competent authority and in view of this situation, a request was reiterated to depute some officer for supervising the work in view of the order passed by the High Court. Another reminder on 13.5.2019 was also made to the authority. Mtrs. at the ground floor has already been regularized by virtue of an order dated 16.5.2019 passed by the competent authority and in view of this situation, a request was reiterated to depute some officer for supervising the work in view of the order passed by the High Court. Another reminder on 13.5.2019 was also made to the authority. Further reminder was also made on 17.5.2019 clearly pointing out that the petitioners were to commence the work of construction and it is only on account of non-deputing an officer to supervise voluntarily work is not undertaken so far and, therefore, when 3 to 4 written reminders in addition to personal meeting, have also not been adhered to or responded, last letter was written by the petitioners requesting to appoint competent officer on or before 20.5.2019 since till 18.5.2020 no officer was deputed. So much so that the petitioner No.2 again met the Commissioner on 18.5.2020 by that time at 14.00 hours and informed that petitioners will commence the construction from 19.5.2019 and in turn, the Commissioner had assured the petitioner No.2 of prompt follow ups from his end. However, until 19.5.2019, the Commissioner has chosen not to depute any official at the site. Vide communication dated 20.5.2019, the petitioners had updated the Commissioner about the status of work made at the site and specifically conveyed that construction has not been made at the site beyond the sanctioned built up area and the same was not in violation of the GDCR norms in any form and also simultaneously, requested the Commissioner to have work ascertained accordingly. But, to the utter shock and surprise, on 20.5.2019 at about 12.10 p.m., the Town Development Officer issued a communication directing the petitioners for removal of construction made by the petitioners at the site and the same is in purported exercise of powers under Section 260(2) of the GPMC Act and the same being absolutely arbitrary, without jurisdiction and the order has been passed without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioners and without hearing the petitioners, the same is untenable in the eye of law and as such, the petitioners left with no other alternate, are constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction. 2.4 It appears from the record that initially, the petition came up for consideration before the Court on 23.5.2019, wherein after taking note of the submission of learned advocate representing the petitioners, a notice was issued made it returnable on 29.5.2019 with a liberty to approach in case of difficulty and then, after adjourning the matter for some time, the matter has come up for consideration. However, in the meantime, as it appears, civil application for joining party appears to have been filed by the Association through its President which application was allowed and the Association was joined as a party respondent and with this background of fact, after completing of pleadings, the matter has come up for consideration before this Court. 2.5 The learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have with their inter-se concurrence requested the Court to take up the matter for its disposal and accordingly, the matter is taken up for hearing with request and consent of learned advocates. 3. Mr.D.C.Dave, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr.S.M.Thakore, learned advocate for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that this is a classic example of autocratic exercise of powers by respondent authority and looking to the background of facts, this it a fit case in which the reliefs deserve to be granted by awarding exemplary costs. Mr.D.C.Dave, learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that the authority, who passed an order on 20.5.2019, has completely given a go-bye to the statutory power under Section 260(1) of the GPMC Act, as the same came be issued only upon issuance of show cause notice under Section 260(1) of the GPMC Act for execution of work carried out contrary to the provisions of the GDCR and here, undisputedly, no such notice under Section 260(1) of the GPMC Act is issued before exercising such powers. It has further been submitted that this very portion of construction which was the center of controversy, was permitted by the High Court vide order dated 3.5.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.6102 of 2019 reflecting on page-33 of petition compilation. It has further been submitted that this very portion of construction which was the center of controversy, was permitted by the High Court vide order dated 3.5.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.6102 of 2019 reflecting on page-33 of petition compilation. After perusing the material on record and after ascertaining the background of fact, the petitioners are permitted to carry out the construction work as per the approved plans and the same would be supervised by the competent officer of the corporation and despite such specific order having been passed which was well within the knowledge of the respondent authority and the same was served, despite more than 4 to 5 written reminders, under one pretext or other, for the reasons best known to the authority, no official was deputed over the site which has constrained the petitioner to complete the construction and, therefore, this order which has been passed is at the sweet-will of authority, based at a convenient point of time, just to indicate that in the absence of supervision, the work has been concluded. But, it is not in dispute that there were several written reminders to the authority to depute an officer to supervise the work and allow the petitioners to complete the left out construction which was substantially completed. But, in addition to such representation, even personal meeting with the Commissioner in which he assured to do the needful, under some political pressure, it appears that conveniently no person was deputed despite last representation and then, has abruptly come out with an order which is quite contrary to the record. 3.1 Mr.D.C.Dave, learned Senior Advocate, has further submitted that the work which has been constructed and completed by the petitioners is not beyond approved plan and further, not contrary to what has been regularized by the competent authority and it has been clearly submitted that the order which has been passed by the High Court on 3.5.2019 has never been challenged and attained finality and the same was passed in the presence of representative of respondent authority and once having attained finality, it is contemptuous on the part of respondent authority not to adhered to the same and as such, this autocratic exercise of power deserves to be deprecated. Apart from that, Mr.D.C.Dave, learned Senior Advocate, has drawn the attention of this Court by referring to Rojkam dated 1.6.2019 reflecting on page-181 of petition compilation that according to measurement which took place at the instance of authority itself, the constructed area is 51.85 Sq. Mtrs., whereas sanctioned limit of constructed area in the approved plan is 56.67 Sq. Mtrs. So, on the contrary, the petitioners have undertaken a less construction than what has been approved in the plan. Additionally, it has also been contended specifically that competent authority has regularized the area of construction by specific order dated 16.2.2016 which order is placed at page-59 of petition compilation and this order of February, 2016 was never challenged either by the Association for a pretty long period of about 3 years and it is only simultaneously after filing civil application for joining in the main petition and, therefore, said order of regularization attained finality inasmuch as the appeal has been filed against the order of regularization, as submitted only in May, 2019 which is attached on page-159 of petition compilation and the same is beyond the period of limitation, cognizance of it would not take place unless and until the delay is being condoned and as such, learned Senior Advocate has submitted this is a gross case in which the respondent authority has acted as a power-charged authority with some pressure which is unknown to the petitioners. 3.2 Mr.D.C.Dave, learned Senior Advocate, has further submitted that the authority, who passed an order, has assumed the power of review as if the same is available to him. This very officer, according to learned senior advocate, has physically verified the construction and also physically examined the necessary documents including the approved plan and the site inspection was also carried out and only after that, has withdrawn his restraint orders which were passed on earlier occasion and surprisingly, as if the powers of review are available, on the basis of very same material and on the basis of very same circumstance, in complete defiance of the order passed by the High Court, quite contrary to the provision of the Statute and with complete non-application of mind, has passed an order directing removal of construction. This action is per-se illegal, not tenable in the eye of law. This action is per-se illegal, not tenable in the eye of law. Hence, a request is made by Mr.D.C.Dave, learned Senior Advocate, to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 20.5.2019. 3.3 While submitting the aforesaid contentions, a specific attention has been drawn to page-30 which is an order dated 11.3.2019 passed by this Court, wherein it has been observed that the respondent authority, who upon physical verification of the site, clearly found that whatever construction is being undertaken is in consonance with the approved plan in the approved areas and has withdrawn the notice as well as the injunction which was passed in earlier point of time and by referring to page-30 and 31 of petition compilation, a request is made that the order be quashed and set aside which is in the form of notice-cum-order. No other submissions have been made. 4. As against this, Mr. Dhaval Nanavati, appearing on behalf of respondent authority i.e. Municipal Commissioner as well as Town Development Officer, has contended that under the guise of this activity, the petitioners wanted to erect a new construction altogether and the same should have been under constant supervision. It was obligatory on the part of petitioners to wait till the corporation deputes some official for supervising the construction work in view of the High Court’s order and here is a case in which before supervision can take place, the petitioners have completed the construction. It has been contended that petitioners cannot insist upon that on a particular day only or as per their sweet-will, the supervision official can be deputed by the corporation. Simply issuance of reminder to the authority will not absolve the petitioners from waiting to complete the work till supervision takes place. So, on the contrary, the petitioners have not complied with the spirit of the order in which the petitioners were permitted to carry out the construction. According to Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate, no plans were submitted before the authority and the petitioners should have waited since the High Court had not fixed the time limit in which the corporation should depute a person for supervising the work. According to Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate, no plans were submitted before the authority and the petitioners should have waited since the High Court had not fixed the time limit in which the corporation should depute a person for supervising the work. By referring to some of the provisions of the Rural Urban Development Authority and the Sections 12 and 260 of the GPMC Act, has contended that petitioners have rather not obeyed the provisions and have not maintained the spirit of the High Court’s order so far. Learned advocate has filed an affidavit-in-reply in the present proceedings which is reflecting from page-41 onwards and has contended that what has been carried out by the petitioners, is an unauthorized construction and have practically made an attempt to cover up the parking space and when the same was noticed by the Commissioner, immediate steps have been taken with all seriousness and has issued specific notice on 20.2.2019. According to Mr.Nanavati, the construction commenced at the site is also in contrast to the regularization order dated 16.2.2016 and as such, when such detailed examination has taken by the authority, the order is issued. On-going construction at the site was not approved nor admitted and according to the authority, the same is not in consonance with the approved plan. On the contrary, a clear misleading and false declaration is made by the petitioners before the authority. Hence, when once again the visit has taken place by the Municipal Commissioner and the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, upon receipt of the complaint dated 13.3.2019, the action was sought to be initiated. Instead of acting in consonance with the sanctioned plan and layout plan, the writ petitioners have approached the High Court by way of earlier petition and have covered up the parking area in the basement without waiting for supervision by overnight completing the construction. Thus, according to Mr. Nanavati, is rather overreaching the process of law and, therefore, serious note be taken. Learned advocate has further drawn the attention to the contents of affidavit and reiterated that without waiting for the orders which may be passed by the authority, in view of direction issued by the High Court on 3.5.2019, unilaterally the construction is completed and as such, in view of such conduct on the part of petitioners, no extraordinary jurisdiction be exercised in favour of petitioners. Hence, a request is made to dismiss the petition. 5. Hence, a request is made to dismiss the petition. 5. Mr.Viral Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Association, has vehemently opposed the petition and has gone to the extent that petitioners and the corporation are hand-in-glow with each other. Learned advocate has submitted that under the guise of re-building the walls, more area of construction is covered by the petitioners than what has been allotted to them and as such, this is a fit case in which the order passed by the authority is sustainable. Learned advocate has further contended that initially, the Association was not joined as a party, though was the objecting about this construction activity of the petitioners and in the first petition, the Association was not joined and the order is persuaded to be passed by simply hearing the respondent authority through the learned advocate and, therefore, learned advocate has contended that the corporation indirectly appears to be supporting the petitioners, though the order is passed specifically. The Association has from the beginning objected about the activity of the petitioners in covering the area and as such, when the regularization order is passed by the competent authority and on coming to know about that fact, a substantive appeal is filed before the appellate authority challenging that very order and as such, when the appeal is pending, the construction could not have been completed. However, be that as it may, the main grievance of Association is that the petitioners were allotted a particular area when the allotment took place and later on, under the guise of regularization order, has usurped a substantial area of basement which has rightly not been pardoned by the authority and, therefore, the order which has now been passed by the authority is just and proper. Mr.Viral Shah, learned advocate, has further contended that regularization order based upon which the petitioners have completed the construction, has never seen the light of the day and ultimately, when the reliance is placed, the Association was left with no other alternate but, had to challenge the same. A detailed affidavit-in-reply is filed by the Association and by referring to contents thereof, a contention is raised that the construction in question deserves to be demolished and the respondent authority has rightly now passed an order which is impugned in the petition. A detailed affidavit-in-reply is filed by the Association and by referring to contents thereof, a contention is raised that the construction in question deserves to be demolished and the respondent authority has rightly now passed an order which is impugned in the petition. A reference is made to some of the paragraphs of the affidavit-in-reply from page-105 to substantiate his stand. After referring to the Rules to be observed by the members of the Association, a request is made to dismiss the petition. The said Rules reflecting on page-133 are placed on record and reliance is placed on clause 14 which is a hand-written rule inserted in the Rules. Mr.Viral Shah, learned advocate, has agitated the conduct of the petitioners in not joining the Association and has requested that if this construction is allowed to remain at the site, the substantive appeal would become insignificant and as such, by referring to aforesaid submissions, a request is made to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, before dealing with the contentions, following few circumstances are not possible to be unnoticed by this Court: (1) The GPMC Act has invested power to deal with unauthorized construction, as alleged, in Municipal Commissioner. Section 260 of the GPMC Act reads as under:- 260. Section 260 of the GPMC Act reads as under:- 260. (1) If the erection of any building or the execution of any such work as is described in section 254 is commenced or carried out contrary to the provisions of the rules or by-laws, the Commissioner, unless he deems it necessary to take proceedings in respect of such building or work under section 264, shall : (a) by written notice, require the person who is erecting such building or executing such work or has erected such building or executed such work on or before such day as shall be specified in such notice, by a statement in writing subscribed by him or by an agent duly authorised by him in that behalf and addressed to the Commissioner, to show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down, or (b) shall require the said person on such day and at such time and place as such be specified in such notice to attend personally or by an agent duly authorised by him in that behalf, and show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down. (2) If such person shall fail to show sufficient cause, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down, the Commissioner may remove, alter or pull down the building or work and the expenses thereof shall be paid by the said person. Similarly, Section 267 is also investing power in Commissioner to deal with the work which is unlawfully carried on. Section 267 of the GPMC Act reads as under:- 267.(1) If the Commissioner is satisfied that the erection of any building or the execution of any such work as is described in section 254 has been unlawfully commenced or is being unlawfully carried on upon any premises he may, by written notice, require the person directing or carrying on such erection or execution to stop the same forthwith. (2) If such erection or execution is not stopped forthwith, the Commissioner may direct that any person directing or carrying on such erection or execution shall be removed from such premises by any police officer and may cause such steps to be taken as he may consider necessary to prevent the re-entry of such person on the premises without his permission. (3) The cost of any measures taken under sub-section (2)shall be paid by the said person. (2) Now, in light of the aforesaid statutory provisions, a perusal of the earlier order passed by the High Court is also to be taken note of specifically. While disposing of the petition, the High Court had specifically directed the petitioner to approach the Municipal Commissioner, Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and upon such approach, the Municipal Commissioner, was directed to examine and pass necessary orders after due opportunity as indicated. Relevant observation contained in para 4 reads as under:- “The petitioners shall approach the Municipal Commissioner, Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation within a period of one week from today and shall submit approved plans as well as order passed in the year 2016 by which certain construction was regularized. The Municipal Commissioner, Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation shall examine the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners are permitted to carry out the construction work as per approved plans and the same would be supervised by the competent Officer of the Corporation.” In view of the aforesaid specific observations and the directions given by the High Court, it is quite clear that this issue was required to be dealt with by the Municipal Commissioner. 7. In the context of the aforesaid situation, a perusal of the impugned order reflecting on page 19 dated 20.5.2019 is clearly indicating that the order has been passed by the Town Development Officer of Municipal Corporation in purported exercise of power under Section 260(2) of the GMPC Act and in the order, there is no reference about the deletion of this power of Commissioner to the Town Development Officer who passed the order. Even from perusal of the affidavit-in-reply, it appears that conspicuous silence is maintained by the authority, which clearly indicates that the Town Development Officer who passed the order has no authority under the law and as such, the order itself is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. Even from perusal of the affidavit-in-reply, it appears that conspicuous silence is maintained by the authority, which clearly indicates that the Town Development Officer who passed the order has no authority under the law and as such, the order itself is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. In addition to this, it is a settled position of law that an officer who hears representation must decide and as such, here from the record, it appears that the hearing has been done before the Municipal Commissioner, whereas the order is passed by the Town Development Officer and as such, hearing is undertaken by one officer and order is passed by another officer, which is also not permissible in view of the settled position of law. As such, ex-facie, it appears that the order in question is not sustainable. Even in the communication dated 9.5.2019, it is informed that hearing is fixed before the Municipal Commissioner and as such, when the authority who exercised the power has not heard the matter and passed the order which is beyond the scope of his authority, the order in question is not sustainable at all. It may be that with an instruction of the Commissioner, the order might have been passed. But, then, when the High Court of Gujarat had specifically expected the Municipal Commissioner to examine and pass an order in accordance with law, it was impermissible for the Commissioner to delegate his function to any other officer, especially when the High Court has clarified in its order itself. Spirit of the order passed by the High Court is not maintained by the office of the Municipal Commissioner and as such, on this ground also, the impugned exercise of jurisdiction by the Town Development Officer cannot be said to be permissible in law. 9. The Court has noticed from several documents that apart from the aforesaid issue, even the Town Development Officer appears to have not examined the matter in right perspective. The authority who passed the order, impugned in the petition, has presumed that behind the back of the authority, the construction activity is concluded within a short time but then this authority who passed the order has ignored the consistent written representations which were made to depute an officer for supervising the work. The authority who passed the order, impugned in the petition, has presumed that behind the back of the authority, the construction activity is concluded within a short time but then this authority who passed the order has ignored the consistent written representations which were made to depute an officer for supervising the work. The said representations in writing are very much part of the record from page 35 onwards in the petition compilation. In addition to this, a reference is made by this authority, namely Town Development Officer, that on earlier occasion, on 14.3.2019, injunction order was already issued under Section 267(1) of the Act and activity which has been allegedly concluded is said to be in violation of such injunction order. But, this very order was subject matter of challenge before the High Court, in which the High Court specifically entrusted the work to examine the issue by Municipal Commissioner and as such, it appears to this Court that the order in question is reflecting a complete non-application of mind. In addition to this, no reference in the finding/order is given about the plea of the petitioner that the work in question is not beyond the sanctioned and approved plan and not de hors the order of regularization and on the contrary, the rojkam has specifically indicated that the area of construction is 51.85 Sq. Mtrs., whereas the approved plan is permitting the petitioner to construct upto 56.67 Sq. Mtrs., reflecting on page 181 of the petition compilation. Further, also a specific order of regularization is placed before the Commissioner as well dated 16.2.2016, reflecting on page 59, the same has also not been dealt with. So, entire exercise of the decision making process even by the Town Development Officer also reflects a clear non-application of mind and as such, without going much into the merit or examining the factual details at length, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. As a result of this, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. In view of the aforesaid background of facts, the Court need not go to the other intricacies which are related to the facts of the case and the submissions related to the same since the Court is satisfied that the order in question is otherwise not sustainable in view of the aforesaid discussion. 10. In view of the aforesaid background of facts, the Court need not go to the other intricacies which are related to the facts of the case and the submissions related to the same since the Court is satisfied that the order in question is otherwise not sustainable in view of the aforesaid discussion. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. However, setting aside of the impugned order will not prevent the authority, i.e. the Municipal Commissioner, to examine the construction in question in view of the earlier order passed by the High Court on 3.5.2019. It is open for the authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after due compliance of the principles of natural justice since it relates to the alleged unauthorized construction. With the aforesaid observations and discussion, the petition stands ALLOWED. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATIONS: Since the main petition is allowed, no order is required to be passed in the Civil Applications. Hence, the Civil Applications stand disposed of.