The understanding of the building plan by the Municipal Corporation is against the statutory Rules framed. The M.P. Road Transport Corporation is directed to pay Rs.7,50,00,000 to the Municipal Corporation within six months, failing which the Municipal Corporation has the liberty to demolish the excess construction raised in violation of the building bylaws.

Hemant Gupta, CJ.

The present petition, filed in public interest, levels allegations of illegalities and negligence of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in respect of construction of Mansarovar Complex at Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal leading to traffic chaos in the area.

2. It is alleged that building has been raised over the land of M.P. State Road Transport Corporation but without proper building plan nor adequate area for parking has been provided, therefore, road is being used for parking purposes. It is also pointed out that the Government constituted a committee of three members which has given a report that the Municipal Corporation has not followed the rules at the time of sanction of the map but still no action has been taken. The report dated 29th September, 2010 has been attached with the writ petition.

3. On behalf of the Municipal Corporation, in a report filed on 5th March, 2014 (I.A. No.2841/2014), it has been stated to the following effect:-

“2. This Hon'ble Court vide order dated 07/01/14 was pleased to issue directions to the Municipal Corporation to submit compliance report highlighting the steps taken by the Corporation in resolving the issues, hence the instance report is being filed.

3. The answering respondent respectfully submits that, paid parking facility has been set up at Zone No. 10, Ward No. 44 near Mansarowar Complex, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal. The land available for paid parking near Mansarowar Complex is admeasuring about 800 sq. mt, which would be evident from memo dated 17/02/14 issued by Zonal Officer, Zone No. 10, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal. Copy of memo dt. 17/02/14 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-IA/1.

4. It is further submitted that the vehicle which are being parked on the main road near Mansarowar Complex (including BRTC Corridor Road) are not being allowed to be parked as on date, since the answering respondents has declared the said particular area as 'No Parking Zone'. Thus, paid parking service has been established at the land adjacent to Mansarowar Complex, Bhopal. Thus, as on date adequate parking space is available near Mansarowar Complex, Bhopal.”

4. In another affidavit filed on 28th March, 2016 (I.A. No.4206/2016), the Corporation-Respondent No.3 has stated to the following effect:

“5. In reply to the letter dt. 2.05.2015, the department vide letter dt. 13.07.2015 clarify the position regarding violation of not providing off street parking and area of marginal open space in short MOS is being used as off street parking. A copy of letter dt. 13.07.2015 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-IA/2.

6. As soon as the answering respondent received the letter dt. 13.07.2015 it immediately sent a proposal to the state govt. for cancellation of the building permission dt. 29.05.2002 on the basis of which the Mansarowar Complex was constructed because as per provision of Section 299 (A) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act 1956 only State Govt. has power to cancel or revise permission for construction of a building. A copy of proposal dt. 16.07.2015 is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-IA/3. It is submitted that the proposal is still pending with state authorities. It would thus be seen that the answering respondent has taken all measures promptly and the matter is pending with the state authorities whenever the state govt. will take its decision the answering respondent will comply the same.”

5. The State Government filed its response on 19th December, 2016 (I.A. No.16780/2016) along with an order dated 24th September, 2016 passed by the State Government whereby the proposal of the Municipal Corporation, Bhopal to cancel the building permission granted to the respondent No.4 was rejected and that the Municipal Corporation was directed to proceed against the respondent No.4 in terms of the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1956 Act”). It is, thereafte