JUDGMENT : 1. RULE returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The prayers made in the petition read as under: “(A) Allow this petition; (B) Be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction, holding that the fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioner has been violated by the servants and agents of Respondent no.2 and more particularly by respondent no.3, in the facts of this case, for which they are liable to pay monitory compensation under public law remedy as recognized by settled legal position from time to time in this regard. (C) Be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondent no.1 to order appropriate inquiry against the erring officers of the respondent no.2 corporation and against respondent no.3 in the entire episode for their gross negligent, collusive and malafide conduct in disregard to their official duties and thereby to protect illegal construction and for harassing and violating the fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioner. (D) Pending admission and till final disposal of the present petition, direct the respondent no.2 to implement their order dated 06/0/2018 or any other order in this regard for demolition of illegal and unauthorized construction in Plot No.23 of Krishna Park Society and Plot No.31 and its Sub-Plots in Shri Raj Park Society in the city of Junagadh as mentioned in the petition.” 3. The petitioner - Jayshreeben Varjangbhai Odedara has approached this Court raising a grievance that there is collusive and willful inaction on the part of the respondent nos.2 and 3 for extraneous consideration in not implementing their own orders under Section 260(1), 260(2) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. 4. Facts in brief indicate that the petitioner purchased residential plot no.22 in Krishna Park Society near Collector Office, Junagadh in the year 2004. An adjoining plot no.23 of the society belonged to one Bharat Chawada (Ashaben Chawada – respondent no.3). Behind the society, another residential society Shri Rajpark society is situated where there is an adjoining plot of the petitioner being plot no.31. The case of the petitioner is that there was an illegal construction on plot no.23 of Krishnapark society and construction on plot no.31 of Shri Rajpark society, both plots being adjacent to that of the petitioner. Behind the society, another residential society Shri Rajpark society is situated where there is an adjoining plot of the petitioner being plot no.31. The case of the petitioner is that there was an illegal construction on plot no.23 of Krishnapark society and construction on plot no.31 of Shri Rajpark society, both plots being adjacent to that of the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Patel learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of the Court to page 28 of the paper book and page 29 of the paper book which contained the development permission and submit that the construction in these plots was contrary to the development permission inasmuch as no adherence thereto was made by keeping the margin land open. He would invite the Court’s attention to the relevant development permission annexed to the petition. Mr.Patel would also thereafter draw the Court’s attention to the Panchnama drawn on 21.11.2017 in the case of plot no.23 and the one drawn for plot no.31 which, according to the petitioner would confirm the fact of the construction being made at these plots was contrary to the permissions inasmuch as the margin lands not kept open. Pursuant to a complaint made by the petitioner to the respondent Corporation on 20.11.2017, the Corporation on 06.01.2018 passed an order directing the private respondents to remove the illegal constructions carried out in their respective plots. 5. Therefore, the essential grievance of the petitioner is that though an order was passed on 06.01.2018, the same is not being implemented and the constructions in such place are not being removed. Mr.Patel would submit that on the issuance of this order on 06.01.2018, on 09.01.2018, the respondents filed a Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2018, wherein, an application Exh.5 for injunction was filed and the same was dismissed. 6. He would submit that the respondent no.3 one Mr.N.K.Nandaniya - the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of the respondent No.2- Junagadh Municipal Corporation has been joined by name in person as the allegations for mala-fide have been made in the petition inasmuch as it is the case of the petitioner that he was hand-in-glove with the private respondents. 6. He would submit that the respondent no.3 one Mr.N.K.Nandaniya - the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of the respondent No.2- Junagadh Municipal Corporation has been joined by name in person as the allegations for mala-fide have been made in the petition inasmuch as it is the case of the petitioner that he was hand-in-glove with the private respondents. He would also concede to the fact that when the petitioner made an application for being joined as a party to the suit, that application was rejected by an order dated 02.04.2018 and on a petition being filed challenging the order being Special Civil Application No.20684 of 2018, the same was withdrawn with a liberty to make a fresh application for being joined as a party which application was never made and recourse was made by filing of the present petition. 7. Mr.Masoom Shah learned counsel for the private respondents would draw the attention of the Court to the prayers of the petition and submit that if prayer 32(B) is read, the final relief that is sought for is for paying mandatory compensation under public law remedy and prayer-C of para 32 is to take appropriate action against the erring officers of the respondent no.2-Corporation. The prayer of seeking implementation of the order dated 06.01.2018 is only an interim prayer and such an interim prayer which is correlated to the final relief cannot be so granted when the Court is taking up the matter for consideration. In support of his submission, Mr.Masoom Shah relied on a decision in case of Swetambar Sthanakwasi Jain Samiti and another v. Alleged Committee of Management Sri R.J.I. College, Agra and others reported in (1996) 3 SCC 11 . He invited the Court’s attention to the relevant portion of the decision wherein, according to Mr.Shah, the Supreme Court has opined that a final relief cannot be granted in the nature of a relief which has no connection with an interim relief. The other decision that Shri Shah relied on was that of Cotton Corporation of India Limited v. United Industrial Bank Limited and others reported in (1983) 4 SCC 625 . He would submit by relying on the decision in case of Cotton Corporation of India Limited (supra) that interim relief can be granted only as an aid and ancillary to the main relief which is available to the party on final determination of his rights. He would submit by relying on the decision in case of Cotton Corporation of India Limited (supra) that interim relief can be granted only as an aid and ancillary to the main relief which is available to the party on final determination of his rights. In context of the present petition, Mr.Shah would therefore submit that when the final relief is only for seeking mandatory compensation by way of a final direction, the interim direction sought for implementation of the order dated 06.01.2018 cannot be granted. 8. The other submission that Mr.Shah made was that if the chronology of events be seen, after the order of 06.01.2018, an application for joining party in the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 02.04.2018. That dismissal was challenged by filing Special Civil Application which was withdrawn on 28.12.2018 to file a fresh application before the Trial Court. No such application was filed. Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution by filing of the present petition therefore cannot be used to short-circuit a remedy which the petitioner already contemplated by withdrawing the Special Civil Application with a view to file a fresh application which he did not. 9. Mr.Shah would also dispute the proposition of Mr.Patel that Exh.5 in the suit has been dismissed and therefore doors are closed for the petitioner. The appeal has been filed against this order below Exh.5 which is pending. The suit filed at the hands of the present respondents is pending and therefore any observation that is made in these proceedings would directly have a bearing on the suit filed by the respondents. 10. Mr.H.S.Munshaw learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3-Junagadh Municipal Corporation extensively took the Court through the chronology of events that there was no inaction on the part of the Corporation. He would invite the attention of the Court to the various events which laid down in the affidavit dated 05.05.2018. As far as personal mala-fides are concerned, he would submit that the respondent no.3 has also filed an affidavit dated 20.06.2018 denying such allegations. 11. Despite the extensive submissions made by the respective parties, that emerges the short case of the petitioner before this Court is that the private respondent, holders of plot No.23 at Krishna Park society, Junagadh, and the plot holders of plot No.32 of Shri Rajpark Society, carried out constructions in their respective plots circumventing the development permission. 11. Despite the extensive submissions made by the respective parties, that emerges the short case of the petitioner before this Court is that the private respondent, holders of plot No.23 at Krishna Park society, Junagadh, and the plot holders of plot No.32 of Shri Rajpark Society, carried out constructions in their respective plots circumventing the development permission. As a result of this, the Corporation on 06.01.2018 issued a notice under Section 260(2) of the Act asking the private respondents to forthwith remove these illegal constructions. 12. True it is that if the nature of the reliefs sought for in the petition are examined, there is no relief in the nature of praying that of the final one that the order dated 06.01.2018 be implemented. It is only by way of an interim measure that such a relief is sought by the petitioner. As far as the decisions cited by Mr.Masoom shah are examined, essentially the decision in the case of Cotton Corporation of India Limited (supra) is in the context of the Code of Civil Procedure and it was when the Court was examining the provisions of order 39 that an observation was made in context of the ancillary relief and the main relief in context of a suit. As far as Mr.Shah’s submission that the petition cannot be entertained so as to short-circuit the civil remedy for which he relied on the decision in case of Swetambar Sthanakwasi Jain Samiti and another (supra), when examined in the facts of the case before the Supreme Court, it was in context of the party approaching the High Court without exhausting the remedy of an appeal of the District court against the order of Civil Judge. It need not be reiterated that when Court exercises it’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court can and ought to do complete justice in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The fact that the petitioner approached this Court and withdrew his petition and abandoned his challenge to filing an application for being joined as a party could not deter him from exercising his right under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking implementation of the order passed by a public authority viz. the respondent-Corporation. 13. The fact that the petitioner approached this Court and withdrew his petition and abandoned his challenge to filing an application for being joined as a party could not deter him from exercising his right under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking implementation of the order passed by a public authority viz. the respondent-Corporation. 13. Reading the affidavit of the Corporation indicates that as soon as panchnama was drawn on 28.11.2017, the Encroachment Branch immediately on 21.11.2017 visited the site. Notices under Section 260(2) of the Act were issued on 30.11.2017 and 14.12.2017. The order of 06.01.2018 was a consequential fall out of these notices. The allegation that the respondent no.3 appears to be hand-in-glove with private respondents seems baseless in view of the submissions made in para 38 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Corporation on 05.05.2018. 14. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr.Munshaw, at the outset, has made a submission that the order of 06.01.2018 was not being implemented in view of the intervening pandemic and the festival season of Diwali. However, the statement is made at the bar that the order of 06.01.2018 shall be implemented in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame of 45 days. Mr.Munshaw also further states that the area which according to the corporation has been encroached upon, has been demarcated and it is clarified that particular area which has been demarcated shall be demolished pursuant to the notice dated 06.01.2018. 15. Considering the fact that the order of 06.01.2018 is not a subject matter of challenge in the petition, consequential action to see that the orders implemented shall be taken by the respondent-Junagadh Municipal Corporation, in accordance with law on or before 18.01.2022. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of with a clarification that the observations made in this petition shall not have bearing on the merits of the suit that the respondents have filed before the Trial Court.