S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. Rule. The respondents in each of these petitions waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal. Heard.

2. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging a Resolution of the Pune Municipal Corporation dated 24-5-2011 and a Circular issued thereafter on 16-6-2011. These petitions are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

3. We take the facts from Civil Writ Petition No.9890 of 2011.

4. The petitioners in this writ petition are an Association of Promoters and Builders of Pune, and the Architects, Engineers and Surveyors. They have impleaded as respondents the State of Maharashtra and the Pune Municipal Corporation and its Commissioner.

5. It is the case of these petitioners that the 2nd respondent, as a Planning Authority, has a power to compound offences committed under The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“the Act” for short). The petitioners state that the Act was enacted to make provisions for planning and development. The power conferred by the Act is to make regulations and there are several Rules an