JUDGMENT

R. C. LAHOTI, C.J.I. — The Friends Colony Development Commit¬tee, the appellant before us, is a society registered in the year 1982 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. One of its objects is to over-see development of the residential area known as ‘Friends Colony’ in Cuttack city. M/s. Modern Mechatech Hous¬ing Ltd., the respondent No.2, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, and engaged in building activity. Pratap Kumar Biswal, respondent No.3, is its Managing Director. The other parties impleaded in this appeal are—the State of Orissa through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department and Cuttack Development Authority (hereinafter the ‘Authority’ for short). The property involved in this litigation is a six storeyed apartment situated in Friends Colony and known as ‘Kalyani Apartment’.

2. The background facts leading to the present appeal are briefly stated hereinafter. The property belonged to one Abhiram Panda. He gave a power of attorney to the builder (respondent Nos.2 and 3) for construction of a multi-storeyed apartment on the said land. On an application made by the builder, the Author¬ity accorded sanction on 3.3.1993 for construction of a four storeyed building in accordance with the building plans sanc¬tioned by the Authority. The construction commenced and when the building came up it was found to have been built up grossly in excess of the sanctioned plan on all the floors. Though the sanction accorded by the Authority permitted only four stories but even a fifth floor had also come up. On 7.2.1994, the Author¬ity initiated proceedings under Section 92 of the Orissa Develop¬ment Authorities Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) against the builder calling upon it to show cause why the offending portions be not demolished. The stand taken by the builder in its response was that the deviations were very minor ones calling for a sympathetic view and compounding of the devia¬tions instead of being demolished. On 25.9.1994 the appellant made a representation to the Authority complaining of the offend¬ing construction and submitting that the deviations from the sanctioned plan damaged the environment and endangered life and safety of not only the occupants of the building, but also of other inhabitants of the locality. The representations by the appellant were made not only to the Authority, but also to the Cuttack Municipality, the Pollution Control Board and the State Government.

3. By order dated 8.11.1994, the Authority directed 5th floor of the building to be demolished as also the unauthorized projections of 605 sq.ft. on each floor to be demolished. In respect of certain deviations which were compoundable, the Au¬thority permitted compounding on payment of Rs.2.09 lakhs by the builder. A notice-cum-order for securing compliance of the order dated 8.11.1994 of the Authority was issued on 30.11.1994 to the builder.

4. On 2.12.1994 the builder filed an appeal before the appellate authority which granted interim stay of demolition as directed by the Authority, but subject to the condition that the builder shall stop all further constructions. However, the build¬er proceeded with the building activity by defying the conditions incorporated in the order of the stay granted by the appellate authority. The appellant’s representations inviting attention of the Authority did not serve any purpose.

5. On 5.12.1994 the appellant filed a writ petition in public interest in the High Court of Orissa which was registered as OJC No.8128/94 laying challenge to the illegal, unauthorized and dangerous construction in the building and seeking demolition to the extent necessary. The appellant also sought for its im¬pleadment in the appeal filed by the builder which was pending before the appellate authority. The impleadment was allowed, though opposed by the builder.

6. By order dated 28.6.1995 the appellate authority di¬rected the builder’s appeal to be dismi