MAHESH CHANDRA JOSHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. S. Dhavan and V. P. Goel, JJ. This petition from Nainital accepts the illegality which the petitioner has committed, but seeks the condonation of it on payment of fine. The contention of the petitioner is that he has raised some illegal constructions against the bye-laws which regulate building activities within the town of Nainital, but inasmuch as constructions of other persons have been compounded, thus, the respondents, particularly. The Secretary, Nainital Lake Zone Special Area Development Authority, Nainital, respondent No, 3 is obliged to condone the illegality and the offence which the petitioner has committed and compound the offence on payment of fine.

(2.) NAINITAL, as a hill town, has special bye-laws. Urbanisation in this town has to be strictly regulated. In the petition itself, the petitioner admits that what he has constructed is against the bye-laws. It is not that the petitioner may have constructed buildings which the law permitted, but were made unauthorisedly and the construction could be compounded. This is not the situation. What the petitioner has done is to violate the law which regulate building activities and has constructed what the law does not permit. Such illegalities are incurable, the Supreme Court had made this clear 20 years ago in the matter of K. R. Shenoy v. Udipi Municipality, AIR 1974 SC 2177.

(3.) THE interim order of 8 April, 1994 is discharged. Petition dismissed. .