JUDGMENT : M.S. Sonak, J. 1. Heard Mr. Padgaonkar for the Petitioner, Mr. D. Pangam learned Advocate General who appears along with Mr. G. Shetye, Addl. Govt. Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2, Mr. P. Shirodkar for Respondent No.3, and Mr. Arjun Naik for Respondent No.4. 2. Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. In this case, an illegal and unauthorized construction was put up by Respondent No.4 in a property situated at Kumbharwada, Bicholim, Goa. The Petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint against this illegal construction sometime in February 2012. Repeated complaints were filed between February 2012 and May 2012. 4. Ultimately, on 18/3/2013 a site inspection was carried out by the concerned Officer of the Bicholim Municipal Council and the transgression report depicting the illegalities was prepared. Based on the same, a show-cause notice dated 8/4/2013 was issued to Respondent No.4. After considering the cause shown by Respondent No.4, on 29/02/2016, a demolition order was made requiring Respondent No.4 to remove the illegal construction within 15 days from the receipt of the said order. 5. Respondent No.4 instituted an appeal before the Municipal Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed on 21/8/2017. Respondent No.4 then instituted Writ Petition No.356/2018 before this Court, which was also dismissed on 20/12/2018. 6. Respondent No.4, taking advantage of some observations in the order dismissing his appeal, applied for regularisation of the structure. Mr. Arjun Naik for Respondent No.4 submits that as long as the application for regularisation is pending, no relief of implementation of the demolition order could be granted in this Petition. He also tried to urge how there is no illegality in the structure or, in any case, how the structure is worthy of regularisation. 7. At the outset, we do not appreciate the conduct of Respondent No.4 in putting up the illegal structure, which involves encroachment even on a public footpath. Respondent No.4 did not even acknowledge the illegality of his actions, but from 2014 onwards contested the proceedings, claiming that there was no illegality in the construction put up. 7. At the outset, we do not appreciate the conduct of Respondent No.4 in putting up the illegal structure, which involves encroachment even on a public footpath. Respondent No.4 did not even acknowledge the illegality of his actions, but from 2014 onwards contested the proceedings, claiming that there was no illegality in the construction put up. After almost three authorities i.e. the Municipality, Municipal Appellate Tribunal and this Court ruled that the construction put up by Respondent No.4 was totally illegal and unauthorized, Respondent No.4, now wishes to commence a second inning based on the application for regularisation, fully confident that by this, he will retain the illegal structure for another decade or so. 8. In Commissioner vs. Tahir Isani – 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 122, this Court, in the context of attempts on regularisation of illegal constructions brazenly put up, made the following observations : “36. Reliance on Rajatha Enterprises v. S.K. Sharma – (1989) 2 SCC 495 is quite misplaced. That was a matter where some minor deviations were noticed in the process of renovation and repairs. This is not a case where some minor deviations are noticed in the process of repairs and renovation. Rather, this is a case where the Respondent has put up the clearly illegal and unauthorized second floor in the CCZ in defiance of the municipal bye-laws, rules, and regulations. 37. In Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India - (2009) 15 SCC 705 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, has, after adverting to its several earlier judgments on the subject, taken cognizance of buildings constructed in violation of municipal and other laws and emphasized that no compromise should be made with the town planning scheme and no relief should be given to the violator of the town planning scheme, etc. on the ground that he has spent a substantial amount on the construction of the buildings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court proceeded to state that unfortunately, despite repeated judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts, illegal constructions continue to mushroom, and thereafter, pleas are made for regularization on grounds of compassion and hardship. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is high time that the executive and political apparatus of the State take a serious view of the menace of illegal and unauthorized constructions. 38. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is high time that the executive and political apparatus of the State take a serious view of the menace of illegal and unauthorized constructions. 38. In Royal Paradise Hotel (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana - (2006) 7 SCC 597 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the plea for regularization of a construction made in violation of the provisions of the planning and municipal legislation by observing that no authority administering municipal laws and other laws like the act involved in the matter, can encourage such violations. Even otherwise, compounding is not to be done the when violations are deliberate, designed, reckless, or motivated. Marginal or insignificant accidental violations unconsciously made after trying to comply with all the requirements of the law can alone qualify for regularization which is not the rule, but a rare exception. 39. In Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orrisa - (2004) 8 SCC 733 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that structural and lot area regulations authorize the municipal authorities to regulate and restrict the height, number of storeys and other structures; the percentage of a plot that may be occupied; the size of yards, courts, and open spaces; the density of population; and the location and use of buildings and structures. All these have and do achieve the larger purpose of public health, safety or general welfare. So are front setback provisions, average alignments, and structural alterations. Any violation of zoning and regulation laws takes the toll in terms of public welfare and convenience being sacrificed apart from the risk, inconvenience, and hardship which is posed to the occupants of the building. 40. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that though the municipal laws permit deviations from sanctioned constructions being regularised by compounding but that is by way of exception. Unfortunately, the exception, with the lapse of time and frequent exercise of the discretionary power conferred by such exception, has become the rule. Only such deviations deserve to be condoned as are bona fide or are attributable to some misunderstanding or are such deviations as where the benefit gained by demolition would be far less than the disadvantage suffered. Other than these, deliberate deviations do not deserve to be condoned and compounded. Compounding of deviations ought to be kept at a bare minimum. 41. Other than these, deliberate deviations do not deserve to be condoned and compounded. Compounding of deviations ought to be kept at a bare minimum. 41. In fact, the Hon'ble Apex Court has gone to the extent of observing that the officials who connive with the parties to put up unauthorized or illegal constructions, should not be spared and disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against them. In this case, the CCP, after it noticed that illegal construction was being put up in the CCZ, caused an inspection and followed the same with a show-cause notice. If the reply is noticed, read, and considered in its entirety, then, it is apparent that there was not even any proper denial of the allegations in the show-cause notice.” 9. The party, who had put up the illegal constructions and who wanted the same to be regularised, challenged the aforesaid judgment and order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by instituting Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 4135/2021 (Tahir Isani vs. The Commissioner Corporation of the City of Panaji). The Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by observing thus : “The violation of municipal regulations on construction must be met with an iron fist. That deviation from the regularisation by compounding is only an exception. Only deviations that are bona fide or when the benefit of demolition would be less compared to the disadvantage suffered, can the exception be applied, We do not find any ground to interfere. The demolition was ordered in the year 2001, Till this day, the same is being prolonged, Hence, we decline to interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.” 10. In this case as well, the show cause notice was issued in the year 2013 and the demolition order was made on 29/2/2016. For the last 8 years or so, the Respondent No.4 has succeeded in delaying the implementation of this demolition order. As stated above, after the challenges to the demolition order failed before the three authorities, including this Court, the Respondent No.4 now wishes to start a fresh inning based on the frivolous plea of regularisation. 11. For the last 8 years or so, the Respondent No.4 has succeeded in delaying the implementation of this demolition order. As stated above, after the challenges to the demolition order failed before the three authorities, including this Court, the Respondent No.4 now wishes to start a fresh inning based on the frivolous plea of regularisation. 11. Be that as it may, the learned Advocate General has pointed out that the Deputy Town Planner, by his communication dated 21/12/2021, has already rejected the application of Respondent No.4 seeking a technical clearance for the proposed regularisation. Mr. Padgaonkar has placed the communication dated 21/12/2021 on record. 12. The communication dated 21/12/2021, issued by the Deputy Town Planner states that the request for technical clearance has been refused for the following reasons : 1. Setbacks are inadequate. 2. Areas of Habitable room is inadequate. 3. WC is not provided for residential use. 4. Puja room area exceed the permissible limit. 5. Steps as proposed are within footpath. 6. Existing W/C as shown in the site plan is not made clear. 7. Light & ventilation to hall is inadequate. 13. In terms of the provisions of the Goa Town & Country Planning Act, in absence of a technical clearance from the Deputy Town Planner, there is no question of the Municipal Council even entertaining any plea for permission to construct let alone consider any plea for regularisation. Therefore, the implementation of the demolition order made way back on 29/2/2016, cannot now be delayed further. The above communication makes it clear that the illegal construction is not worthy of regularisation. 14. Accordingly, we direct Respondent No.3 to execute and implement the demolition order dated 29/2/2016, as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within six weeks from today, without raising any issues of the Model Code of Conduct, etc. If the Council requires any assistance from the State Government Authorities by way of providing a demolition squad, etc. the Authorities should provide the same, so that the demolition order, as well as this writ, is executed within the timeline now indicated by us. 15. The rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order for costs. 16. All concerned to act based on an authenticated copy of this order.