ORDER : J.B. PARDIWALA, J. 1. On 8th October, 2021, this Court passed the following order; “1. This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original respondent no.3 of a writ application and is directed against the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 22.02.2017 in the Special Civil Application No.2890 of 2017 by which the writ application filed by the original writ applicant came to be disposed of with appropriate directions. 2. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge reads thus :- “1. Heard Mr. Chirag Prajapati, learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent–Municipal Corporation to implement and execute the order passed under Section 260(2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act,1949 in its true and correct spirit in the interest of justice. 3. It appears that the petitioner had approached the Corporation because of which the proceedings for unauthorized construction made by the private respondents were undertaken under Section 260(1) of the Act by notice dated 3.10.2016. Thereafter, the final order as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 260 of the Act was also passed on 15.10.2016. As no actions were taken, the petitioner approached the Corporation by a legal notice dated 24.1.2017. As nothing was done, the present petition is filed. 4. Without expressing any opinion on merits, respondent no.1 Corporation is hereby directed to look into the notice dated 24.1.2017 issued by the petitioner and take appropriate steps as per the order dated 15.10.2016 passed under Section 260(2) of the Act. 5. The petition is disposed of accordingly at this stage. Direct service is permitted.” 3. Here is a litigation in which the appellant could be said to be prima facie in contempt of this Court for disobeying the order passed by this Court dated 21.08.2017 in the Special Civil Application No.6475 of 2017. The order reads thus:- “Learned advocate Shri Karan Sanghani places on record a communication dated 19.08.2017 from the petitioner and states that in view of this communication, the petition may be dismissed. Learned advocate Shri Deep Vyas has also no objection. The order reads thus:- “Learned advocate Shri Karan Sanghani places on record a communication dated 19.08.2017 from the petitioner and states that in view of this communication, the petition may be dismissed. Learned advocate Shri Deep Vyas has also no objection. Therefore, as stated in this affidavit-cum-undertaking, the petitioner shall remove the unauthorized construction within three months, which is not fit for approval as per G.D.C.R. Thereafter, the fresh application will be made which may be considered by the Corporation in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition stands disposed of. Notice is discharged.” 4. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein is one of the residents of Shri Bhavanichaya Soceity situated near Suryanagar Pumping Station, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. The original writ applicant residing adjacent to the society referred to above brought to the notice of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation that the appellant has put up unauthorized construction as a result of which, some part of the road has been blocked. The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation took cognizance of this complaint of the original writ applicant and proceeded further to take appropriate action in accordance with the law. An order came to be passed dated 15.08.2016 which is at page no.34 of the original paper book asking the Chairman and the Secretary of the said society to ensure that the offending construction put up by the appellant herein is removed at the earliest. It appears that nothing was done thereafter. 5. In such circumstances, the Special Civil Application No.2890 of 2017 came to be filed seeking appropriate directions. The learned Single Judge without issuing notice to the respondents, disposed of the same directing the Corporation to look into the notice dated 24.01.2017 issued by the writ applicant and to take appropriate steps for the implementation of its order dated 15.10.2016 referred to above. 6. In such circumstances, once again the Corporation looked into the matter and passed an order dated 16.11.2016 which is at page no.45, the operative part of the order reads thus:- With reference to the application seeking permission for development made by Shri Ramilaben Ambalal Solanki, the owner/occupant of tenement No.3/B at Shri Bhavani Co. Op. 6. In such circumstances, once again the Corporation looked into the matter and passed an order dated 16.11.2016 which is at page no.45, the operative part of the order reads thus:- With reference to the application seeking permission for development made by Shri Ramilaben Ambalal Solanki, the owner/occupant of tenement No.3/B at Shri Bhavani Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. Situated in Final Plot No.13 of Final T. P. Scheme No.3 (Vejalpur) contained in Election Ward:- Sarkhej in New West Zone of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for construction in the land of the said tenement, I hereby pass an order to forward the correspondence to the Building Plan Scrutiny Pool Department for further procedure on production of a notarized affidavit stating that apart from the construction approved under the provision of G.D.C.R.-2021, all the additional construction shall be removed by herself subject to provisions of Regulation No.3.7.1 of G.D.C.R. 2021. 7. It appears that the Corporation informed the appellant that some part of the offending construction could be regularized upon submissions of fresh plans but in any case some portion of the offending construction has to be demolished. It is not in dispute that both the orders dated i.e. 15.10.2016 and 16.11.2016 referred to above never came to be challenged by the appellant herein and those attained finality. The appellant was obliged to comply with the order passed by the Corporation dated 16.11.2016. However instead of complying with the order the appellant came running to this High Court by filing the Special Civil Application No.6475 of 2017. It appears that in this writ application, the appellant filed an affidavit-cum-undertaking that she would remove the unauthorized construction within three months, which is not fit for approval as per the G.D.C.R.. Despite filing such affidavit on oath, till this date, the offending construction has not been demolished. 8. This appeal is of 2018. At the relevant point of time, the Appellate Court protected the appellant herein by granting interim relief. We wonder whether all these facts were brought to the Appeal Court at the relevant point of time. We are sure that if all these facts would have been brought to the notice of the Appellate Court at the relevant point of time, this relief would not have been granted. 9. We are not disposing of this appeal today. We wonder whether all these facts were brought to the Appeal Court at the relevant point of time. We are sure that if all these facts would have been brought to the notice of the Appellate Court at the relevant point of time, this relief would not have been granted. 9. We are not disposing of this appeal today. We direct the appellant to demolish that part of the offending construction which the Corporation has said that it can never be regularized as the same is contrary to GDCR. We direct the appellant to demolish the part of the construction in the presence of the officer of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation within 48 hours. The Corporation shall ensure that this offending part of construction is demolished within 48 hours, failing which, we shall hold the Corporation responsible for the same. Once a part of the offending construction is demolished, the same shall be reported to this Court. 10. What next follows is as regards the remaining part of the offending construction. This could have been regularized provided appropriate application with submission of plans would have been placed before the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. No steps have been taken till this date by the appellant to get some portion of the unauthorized construction regularized. 11. In such circumstances, the entire construction should go. We now direct the Corporation to demolish every bit of the unauthorized construction and see to it that both the orders passed by it i.e. 15.10.2016 and 16.11.2016 respectively are duly complied with. 12. Post this matter on 12.10.2021 at 11:00 a. m to report compliance of our directions. 13. As regards the violation of the undertaking given by the appellant on oath before this Court is concerned, we shall take an appropriate call on 12.10.2021. 14. If Corporation wants any police protection, it may seek at the earliest. 15. Interim relief stands vacated forthwith.” 2. Thus, vide the order, referred to above, this Court issued certain directions and adjourned the matter on 12th October, 2021, i.e, today to report compliance of our directions. 3. Today, when the matter was called out, Ramilaben Prakashbhai Makwana accompanied by few other women appeared in person and started crying and wailing. Ramilaben pretended to be absolutely innocent. Thus, vide the order, referred to above, this Court issued certain directions and adjourned the matter on 12th October, 2021, i.e, today to report compliance of our directions. 3. Today, when the matter was called out, Ramilaben Prakashbhai Makwana accompanied by few other women appeared in person and started crying and wailing. Ramilaben pretended to be absolutely innocent. She submitted that she had no idea about the undertaking filed by her on oath before this Court as well as has no idea about the unauthorized construction put up in the Society by her husband. We are not prepared to believe this part of the story. The fact remains that Ramilaben, being the owner of the property, did file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before this Court way back in the year 2017 stating in clear terms that she would remove the offending construction within a period of three months. She did not do anything. She could be said to have violated the undertaking with impunity. We could have taken a very serious view of this violation on her part. 4. Today when the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Deep Vyas, the learned counsel appearing for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation submitted that the offending part of the construction has been demolished. 5. Mr. Vyas has produced photographs of the construction before the demolition and after the demolition. The photographs are ordered to be taken on record. We take notice of the fact that substantial part of the building has been demolished. The matter does not end over here. According to Mr. Vyas, there is some portion of construction, even as on today, which could be said to be not in accordance with the GDCR, but the same can be regularized. On 8th October, 2021, we declined to even grant the indulgence to Ramilaben to get some portion of the offending construction regularized because she was expected to apply with the Corporation in accordance with the Rules and Regulations way back in the year 2016. No steps were taken in that regard. Everyone in the family took things and more particularly this Court for granted. We may make it clear and this should go as a message to the entire society that crying and wailing before the Court hardly matters. It never weighs and should never weigh with any Court when it comes to implementation of law. Everyone in the family took things and more particularly this Court for granted. We may make it clear and this should go as a message to the entire society that crying and wailing before the Court hardly matters. It never weighs and should never weigh with any Court when it comes to implementation of law. The Court is duty bound to follow the law and ask any citizen to comply with the same. The judiciary must not take on the coloration of whatever may be popular at the moment. The High Court is a guardian of rights and we have to tell people things they often do not like to hear. No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right and not asked as a favour. 6. Having regard to what has transpired in last few days, we grant one last opportunity to the appellant to apply before the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for regularization of some of the offending construction which is standing even as on date. 7. Mr. Vyas, the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation would submit that it is within the powers of the Corporation to regularize the same in accordance with the GDCR. We had made ourselves clear on 8th October, 2021 that the lady does not deserve even this indulgence, but we are persuaded to granting her such permission for one last time. We are not expressing any opinion in this regard. We leave it open to the Corporation to look into the application and take an appropriate decision. If the Corporation is of the view that it cannot be regularized for some reason, then the Corporation is expected to proceed further to take appropriate action. 8. Prakashbhai Makwana, the husband of Ramilaben, who is present in the Court, makes a statement that in the past, he had preferred an application addressed to the concerned authority of the Corporation for regularization, but the Corporation has not taken cognizance of the same. Mr. 8. Prakashbhai Makwana, the husband of Ramilaben, who is present in the Court, makes a statement that in the past, he had preferred an application addressed to the concerned authority of the Corporation for regularization, but the Corporation has not taken cognizance of the same. Mr. Vyas shall look into this and as on date if such application is pending, the same may be processed in accordance with law and if it is not pending or has been disposed of, then the appellant shall apply afresh within eight days from today, and within four weeks thereafter, the Corporation shall take an appropriate decision and communicate the same in writing to the appellant. 9. We are shocked to learn from the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 that the entire Shri Bhavani Cooperative Housing Society is unauthorized. The construction of all houses in the said Society is illegal and unauthorized. We want the Corporation to immediately look into this aspect. We direct the Corporation to undertake the necessary survey and inspection of the entire Society, and at the end of the day, if it is found that the entire society is unauthorized, then action shall be taken in accordance with law at the earliest and such action shall be reported to this Court. It should not happen that only one particular house in the Society is targeted and others go scot-free. The law will apply equally to one and all. If there are other bungalows unauthorizedly constructed, then such bungalows also should be demolished. Mr. Vyas, the learned counsel, has assured this Court that this aspect of the matter will be looked into and the needful shall be done at the earliest in accordance with law. 10. Thus, to the aforesaid extent, we modify our order dated 8th October, 2021. We grant this limited permission to the appellant and the Corporation shall take a final call in accordance with law. 11. We could have issued notice of contempt against Ramilaben. However, considering the fact that the construction has now been demolished, we refrain from proceeding any further. However, we have made her understand the legal consequences of violating an undertaking given to the High Court on oath. 12. The appeal stands disposed of. The Registry, however, shall notify this matter once again after ten weeks before this Bench (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Hon’ble Ms. However, we have made her understand the legal consequences of violating an undertaking given to the High Court on oath. 12. The appeal stands disposed of. The Registry, however, shall notify this matter once again after ten weeks before this Bench (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Hon’ble Ms. Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati) to report further compliance of the action in the matter. 13. In view of the above, the connected civil application also does not survive and is disposed of accordingly.