Governments must enforce building regulations strictly to prevent unauthorized constructions and ensure compliance with planning permissions.

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

The present writ petition is fictitious and the petitioner made an attempt to escape from the clutches of enforcement action by filing writ petition after writ petition in respect of unauthorized constructions made by him.

2. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 07.03.2025. The representation itself is not maintainable, since the Government has decided the issue and passed final orders, after affording opportunity to all the parties in G.O.(3D).No.5, Housing and Urban Development (UDV(1)) Department, dated 24.01.2025. When the matter reached finality at the Government level, further representation to the authorities are not entertainable at all. The fact reveals that the petitioner has constructed building unauthorizedly.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality would submit that the petitioner has constructed three floors unauthorizedly. Thus, enforcement action was initiated.

4. The petitioner filed WP(MD)No.22599 of 2024 to forbear the respondents from taking coercive action. This Court passed an order on 20.09.2024 directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of twelve weeks. The petitioner participated in the appeal proceedings and the Government elaborately considered the issues and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners in G.O.(3D).No.5, Housing and Urban Development (UDV(1)) Department, dated 24.01.2025. Thus, the authorities have to continue the enforcement action and demolish the unauthorized building. The Government order issued in G.O.(3D).No.5, Housing and Urban Development (UDV(1)) Department, dated 24.01.2025 became final and remains unchallenged. The Government Order is a speaking order, wherein the facts regarding the unauthorized constructions are considered in detail. That being the factum, the present writ petition seeking a direction to consider the representation would do no service to cause of justice. Very idea to prolong and protract the enforcement action, at no circumstances, be encouraged by the High Court.

5. The Supreme Court, in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another vs. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Others reported in 2024 INSC

990 issued directions in rem in para 20 and 21, which read as under:-

"20. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the opinion that construction(s) put up in violation of or deviation from the building plan approved by the local authority and the constructions which are audaciously put up without any building planning approval, cannot be encouraged. Each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the Rules. In the event of any violation being brought to the notice of the Courts, it has to be curtailed with iron hands and any lenience afforded to them would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. Delay in directing rectification of illegalities, administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency, cost of construction and investment, negligence and laxity on the part of the authorities concerned in performing their obligation(s) under the Act, cannot be used as a shield to defend action taken against the illegal/unauthorized constructions. That apart, the State Governments often seek to enrich themselves through the process of regularisation by condoning/ratifying the violations and illegalities. The State is unmindful that this gain is insignificant compared to the long-term damage it causes to the orderly urban development and irreversible adverse impact on the environment. Hence, regularization schemes must be brought out only in exceptional circumstances and as a on