Anoop Chitkara, J
1. Challenging the notice issued by the Junior Engineer of Municipal Corporation, Shimla wherein the Municipal Corporation directed the petitioner to
stop the construction of extension of ground floor slab, the petitioner has come up before this Court on the ground that whatever construction he was
doing, was well as per sanctioned plan and applicable bye-laws.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Shimla has filed the response to the writ petition.
3. We have gone through the record of the case and heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Mr. Sunil Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already carried out the necessary alterations in the staircase
and elsewhere. He further argued that vide order dated 15.10.2020, this Court had stayed the impugned stop notice. In the intregnum, the petitioner
had already carried out major portion of the alterations.
5. As apparent from the reply filed by the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Shimla, initially, the petitioner had applied for sanction of four storey plus
sloping roof RCC building. Vide order No.167/AP dated 10.6.2005, the respondent had granted the permission to construct four storey plus sloping
roof.
6. After that, the petitioner submitted a revised completion plan and vide order No.217/AP dated 4.7.2006, the respondent approved the said revised-
cum-completion plan.
7. In the year 2017, the petitioner again submitted a revised-cum-completion plan for the previous four storey plus sloping roof and this time for
parking floor at the road level, which was below ground floor. The respondent sanctioned this revised plan vide order No.440/AP dated 10.11.2017.
Reply filed by the respondent further admits that completion plan of the house of the petitioner was approved vide order dated 10.11.2017 supra. A
perusal of the reply further reveals that it is conspicuously silent about the sanction of the staircase as per the sanctioned plan of 2017, whereas the
map annexed by the petitioner clearly points out towards the staircase.
8. The contents of the petition reveal that when the petitioner, to make the parking floor properly accessible, started altering the existing staircases as
per the sanctioned plan, the Junior Engineer issued a notice to stop construction. A perusal of the notice, Annexure P/4 mentions that the said
alteration was to the effect of 21.100 sq.mtrs. Neither notice nor reply state a single word that while issuing him notice or measuring the alleged
alteration, they had compared the alterations with the plan already approved by them on 10.11.2017. Notice dated 8.10.2020, Annexure P/4 itself only
mentions some calculation without any corroboration that how these were measured.
9. Mr. Suneel Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that in the map sanctioned in the year 2017 supra, the new location of
staircase is also clearly depicted and whatever changes were being made, were already sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla.
10. Given the fact that the petitioner was constructing stairs/laying slab to connect the other stairs leading to upper floors of the building on the basis of
a revised plan already approved by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla on 10.11.2017, even if he had to re - align the staircase, then it is for the
petitioner to break the old stairs and build the new, which is within the bye-laws. There is no averment in the reply filed by the respondent of any
violation of any bye-laws or guidelines. Thus, on the face of it, the stop notice, Annexure P/4 is arbitrary and as such, it is quashed. .
11. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of along with pending application(s), if any.
