The petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order in this Original Petition. The issue involved is regarding a building constructed by the petitioner. Admittedly, the construction was not in compliance with the building rules applicable. Originally, the petitioner obtained exemption from certain provision of the building rules as per Ext.P2 Government Order, subject to certain conditions. It appears that pursuant thereto, the petitioner did not submit a revised plan before the Municipality, but constructed the building and completed the same in 1990. The Commissioner of the Municipality took objection to the said construction and directed the petitioner to demolish the building since it has been constructed in violation of the Building Rules. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Municipal Council, which took Ext.P5 decision thereon setting aside the order of the Commissioner and directing assessment of the building to property tax. Ext.P5 states that two Members of the Council dissented and demanded that since the building was constructed after obtaining exemption from the Government, the matter should be referred to the Government and sanction obtained. It appears that one of the dissenting members filed a petition before the Government in which the Government passed Ext.P10 order pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in O.P.9959/1993. By the said order, the Government directed the petitioner to rectify the four defects mentioned therein. The order further stated that if the petitioner does not comply with the said directions, the construction shall be treated as unauthorized and the building shall be demolished as per rules by the Municipality soon after the time given to the party expires. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order in this Original Petition.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioned as also the learned Government Pleader.

3. Before I can go into the merits of the case, I Am called upon to dispose of a contention raised by the petitioner to the effect that the Government did not have jurisdiction to pass Ext.P10 order. The contention is raised in ground B of the Original Petition, which reads thus:

"B. The Commissioner of Palai Municipality has initiated action for violation of the Building Rules. Against the said proceeding petitioner preferred appeal before the Municipal Council. The Municipal council as per Ext.P5 resolution took decision for cancellation of the proceedings of the Municipal Commissioner and accordingly set aside the proceedings of the Municipal Commissioner. The Council acted as per S.364 of the Act, the said decision of the Municipal Council is final and binding subject to review only as per S.364(2) of the Act. So long as Government has not initiated suo Motu steps to review Ext.P5 decision of the Council as per S.364(2) the Government acted without jurisdiction in initiating action as per Ext.P6. As per the act provision, Municipal Council is supreme in matters within their sphere, the Govt. comes in only in enjoined by the Act provision, say for instance as per S.364(2) and not otherwise. As matter of fact, Govt. cannot initiate action of the nature contemplated by Ext.P6 on the individual representation of the member of the Municipality. What has taken place is nothing other than this. This is evident from Ext.P6 itself."

4. The contention appears to be that when the Municipal Council takes a decision, a dissenting member cannot file any appeal or revision against the decision of the Municipality before the Government and therefore Ext.P10 order passed by the Government on appeal/revision filed by a dissenting member is without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the Municipality would argue that in so as Ext.P10 order was passed as per directions of this Court in Ext.P8 judgment, the said objection is not available to the petitioner at this point of time. The learned Government Pleader would also argue that in so far as the Government Pleader would a