शिमला। नगर निगम आयुक्त की अदालत ने भाजपा सांसद अनुराग ठाकुर की हिमाचल प्रदेश क्रिकेट एसोसिएशन की ओर से लालपानी में बनाई गई क्रिकेट अकादमी को सात दिनों के भीतर ढहाने का आदेश दिया है।आयुक्त की अदालत ने इस मामले में आज अपना फैसला सुनाया। अदालत ने चार मंजिला बने क्रिकेट अकादमी के टेंपरेरी कंस्ट्रक्शन को पूरी तरह से अवैध करार दे दिया है और एचपीसीए को आगाह किया कि अगर सात दिन के भीतर टेंपरेरी निर्माण को ढहाया नहीं गया तो नगर निगम इसे अपने तौर पर ढहा देगा।
28 पेज के आदेश में एचपीसीए को अकादमी में बिजली व पानी के कनैक्शन काटने के आदेश भी दिए है।आदेश में कहा गया है कि अगर एचपीसीए इस निर्माण को नहीं गिराती है तो निगम एचपीसीए के खर्चें पर इसे खुद गिरा देगी।
एचपीसीए ने दलील दी थी कि उसका नक्शा नगर निगम में जमा है। ये जमीन वन विभाग की है और एफसीए ने एचपीसीए को इस जमीन को स्थानतंरित कर दिया था। आयुक्त ने अपने आदेश में कहा कि निर्माण के लिए एमसी व टीसीपी से मंजूरी चाहिए होती है जो एचपीसीए के पास नहीं है।
नगर निगम ने एचपीसीए का नक्शा पास नहीं किया था। एचपीसीए ने अपने जवाब में दलील दी थी कि ये अकादमी बच्चों के प्रशिक्षणके लिए खोली गई है और ये टंपरेरी निर्माण है। एचपीसीए ने कोई पक्की इमारत नहीं बनाई है। निगम कोर्ट ने एचपीसीए की इन सब दलीलों को खारिज कर दिया है। अदालत ने एचपीसीए पर जुर्माना भी लगाया है।
यहां पढ़े पूरा आर्डर
The brief background of the matter is as under: A notice under Section 254 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 was issued by the concerned Junior Engineer to the present respondent directing to stop any kind of construction below the Directorate of Education, Lalpani, Shimla. In the footnote to the notice, it was mentioned that at that time, no construction was going on and construction near the main gate and towards the valley side of the ground was completed before December, 2011. The notice was personally served upon the respondent in the presence of the Junior Engineer. 2. The concerned Junior Engineer reported construction towards valley side of the playground and at the entrance gate alongwith construction of temporary toilets and store in the month of March, 2013. The present respondent vide letter dated 2.5.2013 issued by the Architect Planner was directed to submit sanction if any, failing which, strict action under the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 was suggested. However, no response was received. 3. A perusal of the record available in the Architect Planner Branch reveals that a proposed plan alongwith certain enclosures for Cricket Academy at Lalpani on Khasra number 911, 912 and 1060/1 situated in Up-mohal Station Ward Bara Shimla, measuring an area of 9265.21 square metres had been submitted by the lessee Sh. Surinder Thakur, the present respondent in the year 2010. The proposal was examined as per the Interim Development Plan regulations and it was decided to send the case to the Restricted Area Committee because the area in question was a restricted area. The Restricted Area Committee, in its meeting dated 16.8.2010 held under the Chairpersonship of the Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Himachal Pradesh did not consider the case and raised observations regarding architectural drawings, jamabandi and rainwater harvesting tank. The plan was rejected and returned to the architect of the applicant vide letter dated 3.11.2010. 4. In the month of June, 2011, the applicant, after attending to the observations, resubmitted the proposed plan and it was decided to place the matter before the Single Umbrella Committee (S.U.C.) constituted vide notification number TCP-F(5)-5/2010 dated 28.2.2011 under Regulation/Clause 10.4.14 by amending the Interim Development Plan for Shimla Planning Area prepared under Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977. The meeting of the Single Umbrella Committee held under the Chairmanship of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla on 11.8.2011 considered the proposed plan and it was decided that the area in question fell in Green Belt of Shimla Planning Area, where no construction is allowed except reconstruction on old lines. This observation/ rejection was conveyed to the applicant vide letter dated 15.9.2011. 5. With the backdrop as elaborated in the foregoing paragraphs, a notice number 68 dated 8.10.2013 was issued under Section 253 and 242 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 for unauthorized construction of a four storeyed steel fabricated structure (ground floor measuring 49.56 square metres, first floor and stairs measuring 66.97 square metres, second floor measuring 81.42 square metres, top floor and stairs measuring 18.60 square metres) double storeyed dressing room (ground floor measuring 21.17 square metres, stairs measuring 2.92 square metres and first floor measuring 21.17 square metres) a single storeyed toilet/store measuring 39.39 square metres and fencing with channel section posts and crate wire upto a height of 4.80 metres on valley side. The dimensions and area of the alleged unauthorized construction had been given in detail in the notice itself. 6. The matter was listed for hearing on 26.10.2010, when an application for extension of time by one month for filing reply was presented by the respondent through ld. Counsels. It was prayed since some relevant record is to be consulted/ required and information under the RTI Act, 2005 is also awaited from the Public Information Officer, one month’s time might be granted. The application was allowed and the matter was listed for reply of the respondent on 30.11.2013. On the next date of hearing, it was again prayed to grant time as some information was still awaited under RTI Act, 2005. The requisite information was supplied the same day and the matter listed for 7.12.2013. On the scheduled date, the respondent again filed an application for grant of atleast three months’ time to file reply. Allegations of bias, personal interest, haste, extraneous considerations etc. were also levied against the undersigned. Pendency of CWP Number 8662/2013 in the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. was also cited one of the reasons apart from more information stated to be awaited under the RTI Act, 2005. The application was duly disposed of and the ld. Counsel for the respondent was advised to peruse the case record and seek extracts of whatever information required by him anytime. On 13.12.2013, again the requisite information was stated to be awaited. The ld. Counsel was again advised to seek extracts from the case file and information was directed to be supplied as per statutory provisions as well as through process server/ by post. The matter was listed for 28.12.2013. After initial hiccups on 28.12.2013, the reply was filed by the respondent in the afternoon. 7. In his reply dated 28.12.2013, the respondent submitted that the adequate time was not granted to him for filing reply. Personal allegations against the Presiding Officer have again been levied apart from charges of political influence and interference. Further, permission to repair the retaining wall and fencing of existing play ground had been granted by the Commissioner under Clause 8.1 (a&b) of the Municipal Corporation Building Byelaws, 1998 on 9.9.2011. It has been added that due to forcible police action, the relevant record including permissions given by the Corporation for construction of structures relating to the case could not be found. The reply was termed as short reply. It was contended that even authorized construction has been included in the demolition notice at serial number 4. The structures shown against item number 1 to 3 (of the notice) are only temporary structures and do not require demolition by invoking the provisions of the Sections 253 and 242 of the Act. It has been added that the Government of Himachal Pradesh had transferred possession of the Government land comprised in Khasra numbers 911, 912 and 1060/1 measuring 9265.21 square metres situated in Mauza Up Mohal Station Ward Bara Shimla in favour of Youth Services and Sports Department for further leasing out to the Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association for construction of Cricket Academy. Directions regarding adherence to the H.P. Lease Rules, 1993 and forest clearance under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 had been given. Copy of the letter dated 10.12.2009 is enclosed. Khasra number 1060 is classified as ‘Jungle Bila Kism’, 911 as ‘Gair Mumkin Maidan’. Since the land leased out was a forest land, the matter regarding transfer of 0.671 ha of forest land for non-forestry purposes was taken up. It was informed by the Divisional Forest Officer Shimla throught letter dated 20.4.2009 (copy enclosed) that the Government of India vide letter dated 15.4.2009 had conveyed ‘in principle’ approval for diversion of 0.671 ha of forest land for construction of Cricket Academy at Lalpani and amount of compensatory afforestation and net present value. The Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association deposited a sum of Rupees 7,06,295. 8. It has been submitted by the respondent in his reply that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Versus Union of India AIR 1997 S.C. 1228, while interpreting the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 has clearly laid down that prior approval of Central Government is required for any non-forest activity within the area of forest. Hence, the prohibition/ restriction imposed by the Interim Development Plan for construction in Green Belt, which is a forest land, shall not apply where prior approval of the Central Government is obtained under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The Municipal Corporation, Shimla had wrongly rejected the proposal of the Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association for construction of Cricket Academy on the ground that the area in question falls in Green Belt under Interim Development Plan as after obtaining approval of the Central Government, it ceases to be forest land as well as Green Belt. The decision of the Single Umbrella Committee, in its meeting held on 11.8.2011 for not approving the proposal by observing that “the area in question falls in Green belt of Shimla Planning Area where no construction is allowed except reconstruction on old lines” is not only against the provisions of the Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 but also against the explicit law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment reported in AIR 1997 SC.1228. Under the Interim Development Plan, the expression Green Belt refers to forest land or open spaces/ natural reserves, where trees can be planted. After grant of permission by the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the total prohibition in the Interim Development Plan for construction will have the effect of negating the provisions of the Central enactment, which is not only unconstitutional but without jurisdiction. 9. It has further been contended in the reply that the Interim Development Plan, wherein the area in question has been specified as a Green Belt, is a subordinate legislation framed under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, which is a State enactment and cannot override the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, which is a Central legislation enacted by the Parliament. Hence, the rejection of proposal by the Single Umbrella Committee is illegal and deserves to be reviewed. 10. It has been elaborated in the reply that the Khasra number 912 is classified as ‘Gair Mumkin Maidan’ and in terms of the Para 10.4.1.4(E) of Interim Development Plan, it falls in “Recreational Zone and Public and Semi Public Open Spaces, parks and playgrounds”. Use of such land for sports stadium is legally permissible; hence rejection of the proposal was wrong. The Municipal Corporation by treating the land comprised in Khasra numbers 911 and 912 as Green Belt has deprived the HPCA of its statutory right of permission for the construction of Cricket Academy ignoring the provisions of the ID{ and prior approval accorded by the Central Government. For these reasons, the Municipal Corporation should ratify its illegal and unconstitutional action and process the proposal afresh for according approval as per the plans already submitted to it. 11. Regarding built up structures as per the serial number 1 to 3 of the notice dated 8.10.2013, it has been submitted in the reply that this structure is steel fabricated structure in the form of dressing room and toilet and created to meet the temporary requirements of the Cricket Academy where more than 250 students are being provided coaching till the plan already submitted is considered and approved byt he competent authority in the Municipal Corporation. Under Article 47 of the Constitution of India, it is the obligation of the State to promote sports activities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that only such unauthorized constructions deserved to be demolished where the benefits gained are more than the disadvantages suffered. Again personal allegations of bias against the Presiding Officer, inadequacy of opportunity of being heard, political interference etc. have been levied in the reply. It has also been prayed that during the pendency of the CWP number 8662/2013 in the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. , no parallel proceedings in the same subject matter be continued. 12. At the request of the respondent and his ld. Counsels, the matter was listed for written arguments on 6.1.2014 at 4 p.m. In his written arguments, the detailed submissions made in the reply have been reiterated. It has been submitted that due to police action on the night of 26.10.2013, taking over of the property by the State Government, release thereof on 7.12.2013, the relevant record was not traceable. Allegations have again been levied regarding bias, political influence and interference etc. and some newspaper cuttings have been appended. It has been submitted that in case Tarlochan Dev Sharma Versus State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 2524 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has commented upon in fair and transparent Bureaucrat-Politician relationship. In Anirudhsinhji Jadeja AIR 1995 SC 2390, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “ a statutory authority vested with jurisdictionn must exercise it according to its own discretion; discretion exercised under the direction or instructions of some higher authorities is failure to exercise discretion altogether”. In AIR 2001 SC 2524, it has been observed that a bureaucratic apparatus is a means of attaining the goals prescribed by the political leaders at the top… … … The officers have to act upon instructions from above without creating a fuss about it.” The matter of Commissioner of Police versus Gordhaamdas Bhanji AIR 1952 SC has also been cited, where the permission granted to the respondent for construction of cinema in Greater Bombay at the behest of the State Government was not upheld. It was held that the Commissioner was bound to bear his own independent and unfettered judgement and decide the matter himself. Apprehensions of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Shimla acting in conflict with the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in AIR 2001 SC 2524, AIR 2005 SC 2390 and AIR 1952 SC 16 have again been expressed. The rejection of map/plan for construction of Cricket Academy as conveyed vide letter dated 15.9.2011 due to the reason that the area in question falls in Green Belt has been termed as not only illegal but also unconstitutional negating the prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. For diversion of 0.671 ha of forest land for non-forestry purposes, an amount of Rupees 7,06,295 had also been deposited for compensatory afforestation and net present value. Even authorized construction i.e. repair of retaining wall and fencing on khasra numbers 911 and 912, for which permission had been granted by the Commissioner under the Clause 8.1 (a&b), had been mentioned as unauthorized in the notice. Further, the structures 1 to 3 are temporary structures raised. The restraint imposed by the Interim Development Plan for construction in Green Belt is against the provisions of the Section 10 and 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1887 and also in conflict with the Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Citations have been quoted on the applicability of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 like T.N. Godavarman Thirukukpad versus Union of India AIR 1997 SC 1228, Union of India and others versus Kamath Holidy Resort Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 1040, Samatha case reported in AIR 1997 SC 3297 and Nature Lovers Movement Versus State of Kerala and others (2009)5 SCC 373. The rest of the averments, submissions and allegations are more or less of the similar nature as made in the reply dated 28.12.2013 dealt with in the foregoing paragraphs. Observations contained in Syed Mustafa Ali versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1995 Supp (4) SCC 426 have been adduced suggesting measures likefiling of a plan, compounding of the deviation/ unauthorized construction and not to resort to demolition as an extreme step. 13. The written arguments were supplemented by the ld. Counsels for the respondent with oral submissions. It was argued that the Single Umbrella Committee has no legal existence and validity. The Single Umbrella Committee has no powers to regulate building construction activity. It could not have acted mechanically and wrongfully reject the plans of the respondents when prior permission of the Central Government had been obtained under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. After payment of the prescribed amount of more than seven lakh rupees for compensatory afforestation and net present value, the land in question ceases to be a forest land or green area. Rejection of plans is violative of the Article 48 A of the Constitution of India, as the matter pertains to the Union List. The Central Legislation will always prevail upon a State enactment. It is a matter of the self conscience of the Presiding Officer, whether to act on extraneous considerations or refuse to adjudicate upon a matter involving political influence, interference, pulls and pressures. 14. The Joint Commissioner (Legal) and Architect Planner of the Municipal Corporation Shimla submitted oral arguments in the matter. It was argued that the construction raised by the respondent is in violation of Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, the Interim Development Plan for the Shimla Planning Area and the Municipal Corporation Building Byelaws, 1998. The area in question falls in the Green Belt as notified by the State Government from time to time. In Green Belt, only reconstruction on old lines is allowed with the same plinth area and number of storeys. No such structures as have been constructed by the HPCA were existing previously at the site and these cannot be allowed to be retained. The regulations are required to be challenged before appropriate authority if the respondent desires so. The Commissioner has inherent regulatory and absolute powers under Section 253 of the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 as well as the H.P. Town and Country Planning Act, 1977. The Single Umbrella Committee has considered the proposed plan of the Cricket Academy on 11.8.2011 and rightly rejected the same being in Green Area/Belt. The rejection has been conveyed on 15.9.2011. The Commissioner can take cognizance of unauthorized construction and the notice has been lawfully issued in consonance with the statutory provisions. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the H.P. Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 and the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 are three different statutes operating in different spheres. The diversion of forest land in no way gives right to construction in Green Belt. The H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 are specific acts to regulate construction activity. The area in question has been declared as a Green Belt as per the Interim Development Plan. False, vexatious, malicious and baseless allegations of interference and influence have been repeated levied without leading single tenable evidence in support. The respondent has failed to produce sanction accorded, if any, for raising the structures. The respondent has raised construction even after rejection of his map by the competent authority. Even a notice under Section 254 (1) of the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 had been issued on 24.8.2012 directing to stop unauthorized construction. The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has directed in COPC Number 186 of 2012 titled as Ram Lal Versus Rajiv Sharma that unauthorized construction be made a penal offence. In Para 4 of the judgement, it has been directed that the civic amenities released to unauthorized structures be withdrawn. There is a catena of such judgements dealing with unauthorized construction. The unauthorized structures raised by the respondent deserve to be demolished and civic amenities be also withdrawn forthwith. 14. Here, I would like to highlight some of the statutory/ regulatory provisions and other relevant facts based on record vis-a-vis the claims and contentions of the respondent briefly as under: I. The Chapter XIV of the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 deals with the Building Regulations. All erections or works have to be in conformity with the sanction accorded under Section 246, failing which, demolition under Section 253 (1) has been provided. Obviously, the provisions apply to buildings as well as works. No sanction of any structure existing at site has been obtained by the respondent. However, as per the record and admission, the sanction has been refused after reasoned rejection of the proposed plan. II. The Single Umbrella Committee (S.U.C.) has been constituted vide notification number TCP-F(5)-5/2010 dated 28.2.2011 under Regulation/Clause 10.4.14 by amending the Interim Development Plan for Shimla Planning Area prepared under Section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Shimla is the Chairperson of the Single Umbrella Committee. III. In the notification mentioned as above 17 (seventeen) areas/pockets/belts have been notified as ‘Green Area’ under Regulation/Clause 10.4.4. Further under Regulation/ Clause 10.4.10 it has been specifically provided that “In Green Areas, only reconstruction on old lines shall be permissible with same plinth area and number of storeys.” Contrary to the contention of the respondent, not only the forest land but even the private lands/ buildings as well as those of the Government establishments come within the purview of this notification and only the cases for reconstruction on old lines are considered. Although, the letter vide which the Government of India has granted permission for diversion of forest land for non-forestry purposes i.e construction of Cricket Academy at Lalpani in favour of the respondent has not been placed on record, yet it is evident that regulation of construction activity and planned development comes within the purview of the State Government and the statutory provisions of the State enactment in no way come in conflict with the central legislation. The above mentioned permission does not give license to the respondent to raise construction in utter violation of the existing State laws, rules, notifications and procedures. This is not the appropriate forum to challenge the validity or otherwise of the State laws. Moreover, the respondent is claiming permission accorded to him under the Building Byelaws, 1998 as valid and at the same time, the rejection conveyed to him as illegal. Even in Para 17 of the written arguments, the Regulation 10.4.1.4 (E) has been quoted in his favour but other provisions of the Interim Development Plans are being negated by him. The forest clearance is stated to be conveyed to the respondent vide the letter of the Divisional Forest Officer, Shimla dated 20.4.2009, but it was not pressed after the plans were rejected in the meeting of the Single Umbrella Committee and rejection conveyed to the present respondent on 15.9.2011. Neither any prayer for review of the decision of the Single Umbrella Committee was made nor any appeal was filed against the decision before the competent authority. IV. The Interim Development Plan for the Shimla Planning Area has been notified under Section 17 of the H.P. Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 and amended from time to time by the State Government. In order to strike a balance between development activities, environmental and ecological concerns and regulate constructions in a planned manner the IDP has been formulated. V. The Municipal Corporation Shimla Building Byelaws, 1998 have been framed as per the provisions of the Section 395 (D) of the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and approval has been granted by the State Government under Section 397 of the Act ibid. The procedure for obtaining building sanctions has been prescribed under Byelaw 7 of the Part-II of the Byelaws mentioned hereinabove. The Byelaw 8.1 (a&b), under which the respondent claims to have obtained permission for repair of retaining wall and fencing, deals with (a) plastering and patch repairs (b) replacement of roofing sheets. The permission has been accorded on 9.9.2011 by imposing a condition that no change was to be made in the existing ground. Photographs appended by the respondent in the case file depict the status of the existing ground. No plan of the proposed fencing was enclosed with the application. As per the Regulation 10.4.1.2 (xiv) of the General Regulations enshrined under the Interim Development Plan: no wall, fence and edge along any yard shall exceed 1.5 metres in height. No relaxation in this condition has been accorded. Byelaw 39 deals with Re-erection of a Building on Old Line. Byelaw 44 with construction of temporary structure and is reproduced for ready reference: ‘ The owner may construct, with prior permission of the Commissioner, a single storey temporary structure within the boundaries of the site for builder’s office, storage of building material, shelter for labour etc. during the construction of the building thereon or adjoining thereto. The temporary structure shall remain for the period specified in the sanction.’ Clearly the structures raised by the respondent cannot be treated as temporary structures. VI. It would be pertinent to mention here as per the record and being a related issue that as per the Clause 19 of the registered lease deed entered into with the department of Youth Services and Sports, it has been required from the present respondent as lessee that he shall not institute or change the use of any land or carry out any development of land for any purpose other than that indicated in the existing land use map without the permission in writing from the Director, Town and Country Planning. Hence, specific permission for semi public use is mandated. VII. Regarding repeated allegations of bias and political influence as well interference, I am forced to comment that the respondent has not come before this court with clean hands. Construction has been raised in Green Belt despite rejection of proposed plan. The unholy bureaucrat-politician alliance and pulls /pressures might conversely be construed when such unauthorized construction was being raised and completed unchecked and uninterrupted. By levying unfounded allegations of bias, the respondent has indulged in undue character assassination just to cover up his own illegal acts and conduct. It is well said that “Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones on others.” VIII. A perusal of the opening six paragraphs of this order containing chronological sequence of event makes it amply clear even after rejection of map conveyed on 15.9.2011, receipt of the notice dated 24.8.2012 under Section 254 (1) of the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, issue of letter dated 2.5.2013 directing to produce sanction, if any, the respondent has not shown any inclination to abide by the rule of law. Adequate opportunity of heard has been afforded. Even if the alleged Police action on the night of 26.10.2013 and resultant delay in tracing out the requisite record is to be believed, the reply to the notice dated 8.10.2013 was supposed to be filed in the morning of 26.10.2013. IX. So far as the pendency of CWP number 8662/2013 in the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. is concerned, although the Municipal Corporation Shimla is not a party to the proceedings and the petition has been filed in a different context, yet in Para 19 of the order dated 5.11.2013 the Hon’ble High Court has granted liberty to the State authorities to proceed with legal remedies and actions as may be permissible in law. Moreover, the present proceedings have been initiated even filing of that petition. I have carefully gone through the reply filed by the respondent and considered the arguments put forth by both the parties. In view of the facts and circumstances quoted in the foregoing paragraphs, material available on record, it is evident that the the structure mentioned in the notice number 68 dated 8.10.2013 are unauthorized and have been raised in total violation of norms and procedure. Infact I am of entirely in agreement with the authority cited by the respondent under Para 17 of his written as Syed Mustafa Ali and others versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi 1995 Supp (4) SCC 426, wherein it has been held that there may be cases of grave and serious breaches of licensing provisions or building regulations that may call for the extreme step of demolition. The sequence of events makes it crystal clear that the present case can safely be categorized as one of such cases. Hence, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 253 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, it is hereby directed that the unauthorized construction detailed vide notice number 68 dated 8.10.2013 be demolished by the respondent within a period of seven days from today, failing which, the same shall be demolished by the Architect Planner Branch at the cost, risk and responsibility of the respondent. The civic amenities of the premises be also withdrawn after seven days.In addition a penalty of Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 500 is imposed on the respondent in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule under Section 242 and Section 244 both read with Section 383 of the H.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. If the respondent fails to comply with this order, he will be liable to pay an additional penal amount of Rs. 500 per day. The case file be consigned to the Record Room after due completion.
(13)
