Rajiv Roy, J. – Heard Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh No. 1, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Prasoon Sinha, who represents the Patna Municipal Corporation.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the quashing of an order dated 25.09.2014 passed in Appeal Case No. 08/2014 (Arising out of Vigilance Case No.- 195A/2013) by the Municipal Building Tribunal [(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") (Annexure-4)] as also an order dated 15.02.2014 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation (Annexure-3) in Vigilance Case No.- 195A/2013 by which the height of the petitioner's building has been restrained upto the height of 11 mts. on the ground that width of the road in front of it is less than 6 mts. (i.e. 20 feet) and to demolish the deviations in the setbacks of the building and/or for further issuance of any other writ/writs order/orders, direction/directions.

3. The matrix of facts giving rise to present petition is/are as follows: –

4. The petitioner is builder having business in the name of City Makers Private Limited and is in the construction/development of apartments/buildings.

5. It entered into registered development agreement with Sunaina Devi, Satish Kumar Singh and Ashutosh Kumar Singh for the construction of B+G+4 floors over Plot No. 806 situated at Mohalla- Dujra, Patna in the name of ‘Sai City Apartment’.

6. Accordingly, the development agreement was extended which followed submission/sanction of plan for the construction of B+G+4 floors by the certified architect of the Patna Municipal Corporation (henceforth for short ‘the PMC’) vide Plan Case No. P/Dujra/PRN-B+G+4-047/12 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition).

7. During the construction period, a team of the Engineers of ‘the PMC’ inspected the apartment, prepared a measurement chart in which the width of the road in front of the apartment was found to be 5.60 metres to 5.75 metres as against 9.15 metres shown in the sanctioned plan. Further, minor deviations were also count.

8. Based on the said inspection report containing measurement chart, the Vigilance Case No. 195A/2013 was instituted against the appellant.

9. After hearing the parties, vide an order dated 15.02.2014, the Respondent No.4, the Municipal Commissioner of ‘the PMC’ restrained the petitioner to construct the apartment over and above 11 metres taking into account the fact that the width of the road is less than 6 metres (20 ft.) and further directed it to demolish the deviated portion within 30 days. (Annexure- 3 to the writ petition).

10. Aggrieved, the Appeal No. 08 of 2014 was preferred before ‘the Tribunal’.

11. ‘The Tribunal’ after hearing the parties vide an order dated 25.09.2014 affirmed the order of ‘the PMC’ and held that in view of the width of the road being less than 6 metres, the appellant is entitled to construct the building only upto 11 metres.

12. So far as the minor deviations are concerned, it held that while there are no deviations in the front and so far as the sides are concerned, there are minor deviations and as such, the same is within the condonable limit as per the bye laws (Annexure 4 to the writ petition).

13. Still aggrieved, the present petition.

14. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

15. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that contrary to the measurement made by ‘the PMC’ holding the width of the road to be less than 20 ft.; subsequently, the measurement was done and it was found to be 9.15 metres which is more than 20 ft. and as such, the petitioner was entitled to construct the building upto 14.85 metres height.

16. He submits that pursuant to the orders passed by the earlier bench of this Court in the present writ petition, another measurement of the road was done on 18.04.2019 in which the width of the road was found to be more than 20 ft. (Annexure R-4/F to the writ petition).

17. It is his further submission that another inspection was done on 01.07.2019 by ‘the PMC’ (which found incorporated as