GOVIND MATHUR, J. - (1.) By the order impugned dated 12.7.2016, the learned Single Bench disposed of S.B. Civil Second Stay Petition No.3400/2016 preferred in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1428/2016. By the order aforesaid, the Single Bench stayed effect and operation of order dated 04.2.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Udaipur subject to depositing a sum of Rs.2 Crore by the respondent-petitioner with the Municipal Corporation.
(2.) The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur granted approval to the respondent petitioner for construction of residential accommodation on ground floor and further first and second floors at Bharbhuja Ghati, Udaipur. The respondent-petitioner instead of constructing residential houses, constructed 108 shops on ground and further three floors thereon. Certain 'Kacha' constructions by laying down sheds are also made on terrace, which is termed as fourth floor by the respondent-petitioner. Looking to the construction raised contrary to the sanction granted, the Municipal Corporation ordered to seize the entire complex. Prior to it, a notice in this regard was also given on 18.1.2016 and to challenge that a writ petition was filed wherein the order impugned has been passed by the learned Single Bench.
(3.) It is stated by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur that the road on which huge Mall (shopping centre having 108 shops) is constructed is only 26 Feet wide. The shops have already been rented out by the respondent-petitioner and the shopping complex established has became a traffic hazard to the entire area. The street is not having sufficient place to accommodate the rush coming to the complex and is also disturbing the parking system on public way. It is asserted that the permission granted by the learned Single Bench to re-open the Mall by depositing a sum of Rs. 2 Crores shall be nothing but perpetuation to traffic chaos on a narrow lane. According to learned counsel, though knowing it well that the permission granted is for residential accommodation, the respondent-petitioner intentionally constructed a market, as such, instant one is a case of conscious violation of law, which demands strict action. The conduct of the respondent-petitioner, as per learned counsel does not deserve any sympathy or equity.;