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 and Regulations under the Act which are in force. The grievance is that, contrary to the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the Regulations in force, the General Body of the Pune Municipal Corporation (“PMC” for short) passed a Resolution and by that Resolution compounding fees were directed to be charged. The rate of such compounding fees are set out in this Resolution and thereafter the Circular was issued which enumerates the compounding fees to be charged in respect of certain constructions and particularly to regularise any irregularities therein and thereafter to issue the necessary certificates.

6. The petitioners complain that, the Corporation officials are taking months together to process the applications seeking compounding of the irregularities and to make necessary orders, every time the Members of the petitioners have to follow-up the cases and matters. In spite of regular follow-up the processing and clearance is delayed at the end of the Municipal Corporation itself. The petitioners and their Members cannot be blamed if initially certain certificates are not issued and inadvertently a breach or violation of the Act and the Rules is committed. As far as compounding of offences is concerned, that is a matter dealt with by Section 143 of the Act. However, as far as the application seeking issuance of certificate on the plea that before the construction was undertaken and completed, inadvertently, there was no application made for seeking development permission and Commencement or Completion Certificate. Now that the construction is completed and carried out, the same be allowed to be retained in terms of the power conferred by Section 53(3) of the Act. If the Members of the petitioners or their clients receive such notices, as are traceable to Section 52, sub-section (1), Section 53, sub-section (1), Clause (c), then under sub-section (3) of Section 53 application can be made to retain the construction or the development. That application has to be dealt with and in terms of the very law. For that application to be made, there may be fees prescribed or otherwise but surely there cannot be any compounding charges as far as these matters are concerned. The rates which have been determined for compounding the alleged violations and breaches are therefore beyond the purview of the law itself. Therefore, a challenge is laid to this Circular and it is submitted that the writ petitions be allowed by quashing the same.

7. In answer to this petition, an affidavit in reply has been filed and the Additional City Engineer of the 2nd respondent-Corporation has justified this Circular by pointing out that, for years it is observed that in many cases the developers indulge in a practice of going ahead with construction above the plinth, without obtaining