ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.:–Heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.

2. In the instant case, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.09.2018, passed by the Municipal Building Tribunal-1(respondent no.3) in Appeal No. 12 (North Bihar) of 2016 arising out of Vigilance Case No. 172A of 2014 by which the respondent no.3 has modified the order dated 29.08.2016 passed by the Patna Municipal Commissioner (petitioner no.2) in Vigilance Case No. 172A of 2014 with following observations and directions:—

“This Tribunal comes to the conclusion that calculation of condonable and demolishable set-back area is erroneous and not correct and it should be done as per prescribed procedure of calculation as stated in above para. The averment and submission made by the appellant’s counsel is acceptable in the light of the provisions made in Section 317 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, para- 11(1), Appendix-L and M of the Modified Building Bye laws. Since, the 3 year duration for validity of sanctioned map has elapsed, hence the appellant will make the whole structure as residential after submitting the revised plan based on parameters of bye laws prevalent at the date of interference by P.M.C. after demolishing non-condonable area of structure, removing extra construction beyond present map. The revised map submitted by the appellant will be sanctioned by the P.M.C. as per parameters of Bye laws prevailing at the time of interference by P.M.C. Before submitting revised map the appellant will pay condonation fee, leave 1.5m land strip for widening of the front road and demolish all illegal constructions assessed by P.M.C. as per mathematical calculation stated in above para. The impugned order will be modified to the extent stated above.

Therefore, considering all above facts and circumstances we come to the conclusion that the impugned order regarding demotion of entire structure is not just and proper in accordance with law and that the structure may be kept for the purpose of converting into the residential building for which the appellant is ready.”

3. The facts of the case, according to the petitioners, in brief, are that the suo motu Vigilance Case No. 172A of 2014 was initiated against one Lalit Kumar Kataruka (husband of respondent no.6). and developer Krishna Kumar Rungta (respondent no.5). After hearing the parties, the Patna Municipal Commissioner vide order dated 29.08.2016 passed in vigilance Case No. 172A of 2014 cancelled the map plan sanctioned by the Architect and after declaring the whole structure illegal, directed for demolishing the same.

4. As the map had been sanctioned for basement + ground + six floors in which upto 5th floor community facility had been provided and only in the 6th floor residential facility had been provided whereas plot lies in the residential Zone where no commercial facility could have been accorded. Hence, it was ordered by the respondent no.2 to comply with the order dated 29.08.2016 within 30 days, otherwise Patna Municipal Corporation would demolish the same and the expenditure incurred therein will be realized from the respondents. The aforesaid Krishna Kumar Rungta being aggrieved by the order passed in Vigilance Case No. 172A of 2014 preferred Appeal No. 12 (North Bihar) of 2016 before the Municipal Building Tribunal-1 (for short ‘the Tribunal’), which was heard and the impugned order was modified to the extent indicated in the order, which is under challenge in the present application.

5. Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that 30.10.2011, the registered Architect had sanctioned the building plan of Lalit Kumar Kataruka, who died during the pendency of the appeal before th