1. The petitioner had called in question the construction of commercial shops on a plot leased out to the respondent No,1 for amenity purposes. Obviously such construction at the relevant time was illegal as has been acknowledged by the respondents Nos,2 and 3. However, it appears that part of the amenity plot was converted into one for commercial purposes and according to the respondent No,1, a new building plan was also approved by the respondent No,3. Curiously though a covering letter supposed to contain a copy of the approved plan dated 3-3-1999 appears to be available in the record of the respondent No,2, no such record seems to be available with the respondent No,.3. We must record our grave concern over the manner in which records are maintained by public bodies.
2. Be that as it may we are informed that the petitioner has called in question the fresh lease executed by the respondent No,3(?) in favour of the respondent No,1 in a civil suit on the original side of this Court which is still pending. The questions whether such lease was valid is subjudiced in that suit. It may also be observed that this petition has not been pursued with due diligence and events appear to have overtaken the reliefs claimed.
3. For the foregoing reasons we have no option but to dismiss this petition as infructuous. It is, however, clarified that the respondent No,31 will under obligation to take appropriate action, if any violation of the approved plan is brought to its notice. It is also clarified that the observation made herein will not affect the questions raised in the suit.