Purnendu Singh, J. – Heard Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

2. The petitioner has filed the writ application for the following reliefs: –

(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, for quashing the Order dated 01/09/2023 passed in Appeal No. 11 (N)/2022 (hereinafter referred as "impugned order") by learned Court of Bihar Municipal Building Tribunal,- 1, Bihar, Patna (hereinafter referred as "learned Tribunal"), whereby and whereunder. Order dated 02/11/2022 passed in Vigilance Case No.01/2022 23 by Municipal Commissioner, Purnea and the Letter No. 2591 dated 12/08/2023 issued by Municipal Commissioner, Purnea, has been stayed till further order - which has effect of giving final relief itself to respondent no.2 itself, without there being any final adjudication on merits as he would start construction, which has been stopped by the learned Municipal Commissioner, Purnea, as it was found to be against the provisions of Bihar Building bye-laws, 2014.

(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamu, directing and commanding upon the learned Court of Bihar Municipal Building Tribunal, -1, Bihar, Patna, to adjudicate Appeal No. 11 (N)/2022, pending before it, without unnecessary delay, as expeditiously as possible within a period of four weeks.

(iii) For that Lower Court Records be called from the learned Court of Bihar Municipal Building Tribunal, -1, Bihar, Patna.

(iv) To any other relief or reliefs, which the petitioners may be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v) Cost of this litigation.”

3. Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the status quo was granted till three weeks from the date the Municipal Building Tribunal becomes functional and from the orders, it would appear that vide order dated 07.06.2023, the status quo was extended. Both the parties appeared before the Tribunal on several dates in Appeal No. 11(N) of of 2022 and at no point of time, the respondent no.2 found it proper to obtain stay in spite of the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2022.

4. In the meantime, the Municipal Commissioner issued Letter No. 2591 dated 12.08.2023 to the respondent no.2, but the same was for maintaining status quo. Learned counsel admits that the same was not at all required and it can be treated just an information given to the respondent no.2. The concern of the petitioner is that the respondent no.2 had made an application before the Tribunal for seeking stay of the order dated 02.11.2022 passed in Vigilance Case No. 01 of 2022-23 in accordance with the provision of Section 323(1) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 on the verge of conclusion of the final argument on behalf of the respondent no.2.

5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order granting stay dated 01.09.2023 to the extent that the Tribunal must not have granted blanket stay to the respondent no.2 in violation of provision of Section 323(4) of the Bihar Municipal Act. Learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon Para-7 of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and Others reported in (1985) 1 SCC 260 and the said proposition have been reiterated in subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Suman Dutta reported in (2000) 10 SCC 311; State of U.P. and Others vs. Ram Sukhi Devi reported in (2005) 9 SCC 733; Mehul Mahendra Thakkar vs. Meena Mehul Thakkar reported in (2009) 14 SCC 48 and State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki & Others reported in (2009) 17 SCC 555. Learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has proceeded in an incorrect manner by granting stay to the respondent no.2 and the order must be interfered by this Court having passed without jurisdict