Ds Casa Hotel vs State of HP and others

A,The extent of construction permissible as per the sanctioned plan.,"The extent of construction which was permissible as per sanctioned plan was 485.22 sq. meters.

B,"The extent of construction actually carried out by them on the spot;","The extent of construction actually carried out by the petitioner is 727.83 sq. meters.

C,"Deviation made in the actual construction as compared to the sanction plan.","The deviation made in the actual construction as compare to the sanctioned plan is 242.61 sq. meters.

D,"The extent of construction which is otherwise compoundable as per the existing Municipal Laws, more specially under Section 31-A of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act;","The extent of construction which is otherwise compoundable as per the existing Municipal laws, more specifically under Section 31-A of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act is 48.52 sq. meters.

E,The extent of construction which is otherwise not compoundable;,"The extent of construction which is otherwise not compoundable is 194.09 sq. meters as per unamended Act.

F,"Furnish an undertaking to this Court that in the event of the vires of the amendment incorporated in the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act being struck down or otherwise, Shall demolish the construction raised in the excess of the sanction plans and beyond compoundable limits;","The deponent undertakes that in the event of the vires of the amendment incorporated in the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act being struck down or otherwise shall close the construction raised in excess of the sanction plans and beyond compoundable limits.

G,"Comply with all other statutory Rules/Regulations/Bye-laws under the provisions of the water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.","The Deponent undertakes that he will comply with all other statutory Rules/Regulations/Bye-laws under the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. petition was filed that the authorities had failed to consider the applicability of the provisions of Section 31-B of the Town and Country Planning Act.,,

It is not in dispute that in a separate writ petition the vires of such provision came to be assailed and same has been held to be ultra vires in CWP No. 612 of 2017, titled as Abhimanyu Rathor Vs. State of H.P. and others decided on 22.12.2017. As such, the issue raised in the present" writ petition is no longer res integra and the petition needs to be dismissed with the petitioner's undertaking to be enforced in accordance with law.

At this stage, Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, from the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw" the present writ petition, which is permitted to be withdrawn subject to the petitioner's depositing a sum of Rs.2.00 lac (rupees two lac only), as" costs to be deposited with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla 171 009. Petitioner undertakes to deposit the cost within a" period of one week from today and affidavit of compliance be filed in the Registry of this Court within the same period, for which purpose the" matter be listed before Registrar (Judicial) on 15.1.2018. In view of the above the writ petition is disposed of as having been withdrawn, so also" pending application, if any. All interim order(s), if any, stand vacated."