Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’), its Municipal Commissioner and Respondents and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of the Municipal Authorities to stop construction, as after verification conducted on 25.09.2013 measurements were taken, which is on record as Annexure 8, showing various alleged deviations and various alleged contraventions. Petitioner points out that if one looks to the alleged deviations, it would appear that some of them are no deviations, some of them are so nominal that either they can be condoned or they have to be ignored; inasmuch as maximum deviation shown is of 0.65 meters. It is further submitted that the height of building has been wrongly calculated. It is also submitted that by judgment of this Court in case of Anup Kumar Vs. P.R.D.A. being C.W.J.C.No. 2686 of 2003 decided on 04.10.2007, this Court had clearly held that the height of the building has to be determined from the plinth and if this is kept in mind then the alleged excess height is not there. It is then submitted that the requirement is of taking clearance from the Airport Authority. That clearance, admittedly, being there, no issue can be made whether clearance was obtained before the plan was sanctioned or after plan was sanctioned as, admittedly, clearance has been obtained. It is further submitted that even if deviations are there, they are all condonable and as such work of the building, which is in the finishing stage, cannot be stopped. It is further submitted that there is nothing known as an “occupancy certificate” under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (for short `the Act’) or the Rules framed thereunder. What is contemplated is that completion certificate in terms of section 327. I will deal with this a little later.

3. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that pursuant to these discrepancies as evident from the measurement as contained in Annexure 8, petitioner was noticed and a vigilance case being Vigilance Case No. 112A of 2013 has been initiated and is under consideration of the Municipal Commissioner. The petitioner states that the same has been responded to by the petitioner on 09.10.2013, Thus, even though show cause has been filed over two months back, proceedings have not been concluded.

4. Firstly in this connection I may point out that the Municipal Commissioner must bear in mind that he is treading upon property rights, which is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution. He has to be vigilant both with regard to compliance of building bye-laws, but at the same time about rights of the parties to get a final order immediately. Once having stopped the work, he cannot then sit back and relax on the plea that he has little time to conclude the proceedings. If the number of cases are large, he has to devote larger time. He would be required to sit and hold vigilance courts every day if situation so demands so that the matter can be decided expeditiously. Builders cannot be expected to wait for weeks and months for their matters to be decided at the convenience of the officers while stopping all work.

5. Apart from commerce being involved, there is question of third party rights as well. People, who have purchased property in the building and who have to let out on rent their property in the building, would be awaiting completion certificate so that they can occupy the same and start using it. It is for this reason that the cases have to be expeditiously disposed of.

6. Coming to the aspect of the “occupation certificate”, both learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Corporation agree that there is no concept under the Municipal Act for “occupation certificate”. Learned counsel for the Corporation fairly concedes that in regard to the concept of occupation certificate, there was no such provision i