ORDER : D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. 1. W.P. No. 18945 of 2017 is filed for declaring the proceedings of the 3rd respondent, dated 09.02.2017, by which the petitioners were asked to apply afresh to the 2nd respondent for grant of building permission for third and fourth floors, is illegal, arbitrary etc., particularly without processing the existing application. 2. While the Writ Petition No. 18945 of 2017 has been pending, a demand and a notice through SMS on 07.05.2020 was issued under the BPS Scheme to the same petitioners demanding Rs. 54,82,716/- for processing the BPS application No. BPS 2019/GUN/MO/61/253. Hence, W.P. No. 12646 of 2020 was filed questioning the demand of Rs. 54,82,716/- for processing the BPS application No. BPS 2019/GUN/MO/61/253. 3. With the consent of all the counsels, W.P. No. 12646 of 2020 was taken up for hearing. 4. This Court has heard Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that because of circumstances beyond their control and the delay/inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioners were being penalized in this case. The 1st petitioner before this Court is a Society that has established and is running an Engineering College in Budampadu, Guntur Municipal Corporation. The case of the petitioners as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the ground and the two floors of the college were constructed by obtaining necessary building permissions. They have then submitted an application for construction of the 3rd and 4th floors over the existing building on 03.03.2011 along with fee and the plans. Thereafter, the plans were not approved but they were being returned on one ground or the other. One of the main grounds on which the plans were returned is that 'No Objection Certificate' from the Fire Services Department was not obtained. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after pursing the matter a number of times they had in fact submitted the plan in February, 2014 along with the Fire Services Department's NOC. In this period, they were pursing the approval of plan with the Vijayawada Guntur Tenali Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority (in short "VGTMUDA"). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after pursing the matter a number of times they had in fact submitted the plan in February, 2014 along with the Fire Services Department's NOC. In this period, they were pursing the approval of plan with the Vijayawada Guntur Tenali Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority (in short "VGTMUDA"). Thereafter, because of the establishment of the Amaravati Metropolitan Region Development Authority (in short "CRDA") they were directed to approach the CRDA. In this process the plan was kept pending with CRDA. Later, learned counsel submits that CRDA directed the petitioners in February, 2017 to apply to the Guntur Municipal Corporation since Budampadu village falls within the Guntur Municipal Corporation. Learned counsel submits that from 2017 onwards they were pursing with Guntur Municipal Corporation for approval of the plan. He submits that suddenly in February, 2020 a notice was given for huge amount of Rs. 54.82 lakhs for regularizing the so-called illegal construction under the BPS scheme. Learned counsel submits that the 1st petitioner is a bona fide society which has submitted its plans in 2011 and since then was pursing with the authorities for approval of the same. Because of certain statutory difficulties like change of jurisdiction, non-availability of the 'No Objection Certificate' from the Fire Services Department etc., learned counsel submits that the petitioners could not submit all the documents in time. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners cannot be burdened with the huge penalty, as in the strict sense of word there is no default on the part of the petitioners. He also argues that when the Writ Petition No. 18495 of 2017 was pending the demand should not have been issued by the respondents. He submits that if the demand is allowed to be made and the building is classified as an 'unauthorized construction' the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss. He points out that the respondents were also ready to take coercive steps and therefore the petitioners had no option except to approach this Court. 6. In reply to this, Sri Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that any building construction can only be started after appropriate permission is obtained. If permission is not obtained, the building will have to be classified as an 'unauthorized construction' only. 6. In reply to this, Sri Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that any building construction can only be started after appropriate permission is obtained. If permission is not obtained, the building will have to be classified as an 'unauthorized construction' only. Learned standing counsel submits that once an unauthorized construction is made, if the BPS Scheme applies, the required amounts etc., should be paid within 90 days from the date of application, failing which, it will be presumed that the application is rejected. Learned standing counsel points out that the building was constructed without any approval and therefore it has to be classified as an unauthorized construction. He further submits that even the BPS scheme was not followed and the amount was not paid, therefore, he submits that it is deemed to have rejected. Only if the amount is paid as demanded the building plan can be processed as per the learned Standing Counsel. 7. Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned standing counsel on the other hand also argues on similar lines pointing out the sequence of events. Learned standing counsel points out that the petitioners should not have commenced the construction of the building or completed the same without obtaining the approval. Relying on the various documents, the learned standing counsel submits that the petitioners were asked to stop the construction of the building, particularly, the 3rd and 4th floors but they continued and completed the same. He points out that the inspections were done and notices were given to the petitioners informing them that the construction is not as per the stipulations and requesting them to comply with the law. They were also directed to stop the construction but they proceeded with the same. Therefore, the sum and substance of his submission is that the construction is made without obtaining permission and therefore it can only be regularized by levying the compounding fee etc., subject to eligibility. He also argues that as the building rules are violated, the petitioners cannot seek writ of Mandamus. 8. This Court after examining the case notices that there is no serious dispute about the sequence of events or about the correspondence that is exchanged between the parties. The ground and the 1st floor were constructed as per approval. However, it is clear that the 3rd and 4th floors were not constructed after approval of the plan. 8. This Court after examining the case notices that there is no serious dispute about the sequence of events or about the correspondence that is exchanged between the parties. The ground and the 1st floor were constructed as per approval. However, it is clear that the 3rd and 4th floors were not constructed after approval of the plan. Admittedly, in this case since the height of the building exceeded the limit specified the petitioners had to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' from the Fire Services Department. This is all the more important, particularly as the petitioners are running an educational institution by admitting students. The fact that the deviations pointed out actually exist on the ground is also not in dispute. For example, in the letter dated 23.05.2011 certain documents were directed to be submitted. This was complied by the letter dated 15.10.2011. Even earlier a letter dated 26.04.2011 was issued to the petitioners and they had replied to the same on 11.05.2011. They also prayed that the status quo should be maintained by provisionally approving the building plans. They made request to direct the Vice Chairman of the Urban and Metropolitan Development Authorities not to enforce the penal provisions. The letter dated 30.12.2011 points out the height of the building and directs them to get NOC. They admit that the NOC application is still in progress. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents did not commit any mistake in pointing out the flaws and also the unauthorized construction. Apart from that it is also clear that more than one notice was issued to the petitioners to stop construction. On 26.04.2011 a letter was issued from the VGTMUDA to submit the revised plans and to stop the unauthorized constructions. This was followed by another letter, dated 12.05.2011, wherein the petitioners were directed to stop the constructions. In the letter dated 20.12.2012 it is clearly mentioned that despite the earlier letters the petitioners have completed the construction of the 3rd and 4th floors and violated the regulations and setbacks. A show cause notice was also issued on 20.12.2012 to which a reply was also given on 02.05.2013. In this letter it is requested that all the proceedings should be dropped. The Fire permission was given on 24.01.2014. On 15.02.2014 the revised building plans were submitted along with NOC. A show cause notice was also issued on 20.12.2012 to which a reply was also given on 02.05.2013. In this letter it is requested that all the proceedings should be dropped. The Fire permission was given on 24.01.2014. On 15.02.2014 the revised building plans were submitted along with NOC. Thereafter, since the Guntur Municipal Corporation was said to be the appropriate authority, the petitioners were directed to approach them. The petitioners, thereafter made an application on 04.05.2018 to the Guntur Municipal Corporation requesting for approval of the 3rd and 4th floors. The petitioners then submitted BPS application dated 01.04.2019 for regularization of the building, but this was stated to be without prejudice to their rights. What is also interesting is that the petitioners marked copies of their letters dated 15.02.2014 and 24.11.2016 to the Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation too while addressing the VGTM UDA and the CRDA respectively. 9. The question that now arises is that whether the petitioners are entitled to a relief. Admittedly, there was a delay in processing of the building application. It cannot be stated that the entire delay is due to the respondent authorities only. As the height of the building was about 18 mtrs., the NOC was granted on 24.01.2014 by the Fire Services Department with a rider that penal interest should be collected from the applicant. This was submitted on 15.02.2014 to the CRDA. The CRDA returned the same and informed the petitioners to apply to the Guntur Municipal Corporation in February, 2017. On 04.05.2018 the application was submitted by the petitioners. Even the scanned copy of the file was sent by CRDA to the Guntur Municipal Corporation in June, 2017. From the sequence it is clear that the height was determined after the construction was completed only. If the plan was submitted for approval the respondents would have realized the height of the building etc., to raise their objection about NOC from the Fire Services Department. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners are also guilty of latches/delay and they cannot shift the blame only on to the respondents. 10. Apart from this, the larger question that still remains is can the building be constructed without an approved plan? The law is very clear. Construction can only be with permission. The commencement of the construction itself without a plan is an actionable wrong. 10. Apart from this, the larger question that still remains is can the building be constructed without an approved plan? The law is very clear. Construction can only be with permission. The commencement of the construction itself without a plan is an actionable wrong. As mentioned above the petitioners were directed to stop the construction, yet they did not stop the construction. In fact, they had completed the construction despite the notice. Letter, dated 30.12.2011, issued by the VGTMUDA makes it very clear that the construction of the building was completed in 2011 and the Fire Services Department's NOC was not obtained. As an educational institution, which would be admitting students, a greater duty lies on the petitioners to act as responsible citizens. The Fire NOC is now mandatory for buildings over certain heights in view of the dangers involved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in more than one decision has highlighted that the safety of the students should of a paramount interest and construction of the building etc., should be of a required standard. Although that said case law is not again reproduced hereunder but the fact remains that the petitioners and the respondents agree that the Fire NOC was required. Starting the construction and completing the same without the Fire NOC and approved building plan, in the opinion of this Court, disentitles the petitioners to claim any relief. 11. As far as the building penalization scheme is concerned, the petitioners are bound to comply with the scheme. Merely because they have filed a Writ Petition it will not enable him to justify their action. Admittedly, there was no sanctioned building plan for 3rd and 4th floors. The deficiencies pointed out, apart from lack of building plan, are also admitted. The scheme provides for payment of the money for processing of the application. This was highlighted in the counter filed by the Municipal Corporation also. Within 90 days from the date of submission of the application as per Rule 5 (5) the applicant should have paid the balance charges. Therefore, the petitioners cannot, as a matter of right, demand that a mandamus be issued declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in demanding the amount is incorrect. Mandamus is an equitable relief and is governed by equitable principles. Therefore, the petitioners cannot, as a matter of right, demand that a mandamus be issued declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in demanding the amount is incorrect. Mandamus is an equitable relief and is governed by equitable principles. The said writ is also issued when there is an existing imperative duty which is not performed or is refused by the respondent/State. In the case on hand as per the sequence of events this Court does not find any reason to hold that there was a failure on the part of the respondents to exercise their duty. 12. As the building plan is not approved and the construction was completed without permission and as the BPS application is not submitted with the requisite fee, this Court holds that a mandamus cannot be issued. For the above reasons this Court holds that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as prayed for. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition No. 12646 of 2020 is dismissed. 13. As stated above the sequence of events; the conduct of the petitioners; their attitude in proceeding with the construction despite notices etc., disentitles them from seeking a mandamus to process the application. An application with the requisite documents was only submitted in 2014 after the completion of the construction of 3rd and 4th floors. Hence, the petitioners cannot as of right pray for a mandamus. The letters dated 30.12.2011 and 20.12.2012 of the VGTM Urban Development Authority are clear. Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 18945 of 2017 is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, in these Writ Petitions shall also stand dismissed.