JUDGMENT

P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, CJ. — The petitioners, co-owner purchasers of a plot of land, applied for approval of a building plan in the said plot in terms of the Orissa Development Authori¬ties Act. An approved plan was sanctioned. The petitions, in terms of the said Act and the relevant Rules, were allowed to construct a building in terms of the approved plan. But, the petitioners clearly violating the approved plan, started the construction. They did not leave any set back in the rear portion as per the approved plan. In that situation, the Cuttack Develop¬ment Authority, issued a notice calling upon the petitioners to stop the construction. Defying the direction to stop construction in violation of the approved plan, the petitioners went ahead with the construction. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioners for making the construction in violation of the approved plan and in violation of the relevant provisions of the Orissa Development Authorities Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The petitioners could not seriously dispute the factum of violation and the serious departures from the approved plan. But, they contended that under Regulation 35 (iii) of the Cuttack Development Authority (Planning and Building Standards) Regula¬tion, 2001, they would be justified in not leaving any set back on one side of the property, provided they had left a set back of one metre on the other side. The original authority, the Secre¬tary, Cuttack Development Authority, found that there were delib¬erate violations of the approved plan and that the conduct of the petitioners was also reprehensible in having continued the con¬struction in spite of an order directing them to desist from making the construction in violation of the approved plan. He found that there was no provision which would permit the regu¬larisation of such a violation and it was not a case where any concession can be shown to the builder who had violated the approved plan, had refused to obey the order to stop construction in violation and who had not conformed to the requirements of the Orissa Development Authorities Act. The authority therefore directed the petitioners to demolish the deviation within one month of his order. We notice here that a neighbouring owner had in fact made a complaint that his right to light and air has been seriously impaired by the construction made by the petitioners in violation of the provisions of the Act and the approved plan.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the original authority, the petitioners filed appeal under Section 91(2) of the Act. The appellate authority, after a consideration of all the relevant aspects including the conduct of the petitioners in making the construction in spite of the order prohibiting such construction, held that the original authority was fully justi¬fied in ordering the demolition.

3. On going through the orders of the authorities below, we find that this is a case where the petitioners after obtaining an approved plan for construction in a plot purchased by them, pro¬ceeded to put up a construction clearly in violation of the approved plan. This conduct, in our view, dissentitles the peti¬tioners to any reliefs from the Court by invoking its discretion¬ary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. What is worse, the petitioners continued the unauthorised con¬struction in defiance of a valid order issued by the competent authority under the Act and well within his jurisdiction. Even after the proceedings were initiated, the construction was con¬tinued in defiance of the relevant provisions of the Act, the Rules and the prohibitory orders issued. This conduct of the petitioners, in our view, totally disentitles the petitioners to any relief from this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A person who thinks that he can get away with a violation and who continues the violation notwithstanding the direction to stop