Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation (for short Corporation), its Municipal Commissioner and Respondents and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of the Municipal Authorities to stop construction, as after verification conducted on 25.9.2013 measurements were taken, which is on record as Annexure-8, showing various alleged deviations and various alleged contraventions. Petitioner points out that if one looks to the alleged deviations, it would appear that some of them are no deviations, some of them are so nominal that either they can be condoned or they have to be ignored; inasmuch as maximum deviation shown is of 0.65 meters. it is further submitted that the height of building has been wrongly calculated. It is also submitted that by judgment of this Court in case of Anup Kumar Vs. PRDA and Others, . decided on 4.10.2007, this Court had clearly held that the height of the building has to be determined from the plinth and if this is kept in mind then the alleged excess height is not there. It is then submitted that the requirement is of taking clearance from the Airport Authority. That clearance, admittedly, being there, no issue can be made whether clearance was obtained before the plan was sanctioned or after plan was sanctioned as, admittedly, clearance has been obtained. It is further submitted that even if deviations are there, they are all condonable and as such work of the building, which is in the finishing stage, cannot be stopped. It is further submitted that there is nothing known as an "occupancy certificate" under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (for short the Act) or the Rules framed thereunder. What is contemplated is that completion certificate in terms of Section 327. I will deal with this a little later.

2. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that pursuant to these discrepancies as evident from the measurement as contained in Annexure-8, petitioner was noticed and a vigilance case being Vigilance Case No. 112A of 2013 has been initiated and is under consideration of the Municipal Commissioner. The petitioner states that the same has been responded to by the petitioner on 9.10.2013, Thus, even though show cause has been filed over two months back, proceedings have not been concluded.

3. Firstly in this connection I may point out that the Municipal Commissioner must bear in mind that he is treading upon property rights, which is a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution. He has to be vigilant both with regard to compliance of building bye-laws, but at the same time about rights of the parties to get a final order immediately. Once having stopped the work, he cannot then sit back and relax on the plea that he has little time to conclude the proceedings. If the number of cases are large, he has to devote larger time. He would be required to sit and hold vigilance courts everyday if situation so demands so that the matter can be decided expeditiously. Builders cannot be expected to wait for weeks and months for their matters to be decided at the convenience of the officers while stopping all work;

4. Apart from commerce being involved, there is question of third party rights as well. People, who have purchased property in the building and who have to let out on rent their property in the building, would be awaiting completion certificate so that they can occupy the same and start using it. It is for this reason that the cases have to be expeditiously disposed of.

5. Coming to the aspect of the "occupation certificate", both learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Corporation agree that there is no concept under the Municipal Act for "occupation certificate". Learned counsel for the Corporation fairly concedes" that in regard to the concept of occupation certificate, there was no such provision in law. The only similar statutory requirement is of a "completion certificate", which is contemplated u/s 327 of the Act. In order to appreciate even what is completion certificate, it is necessary to refer to Sections 319 and 327 of the Act, which are quoted hereunder:--

319. No action to be taken without affording opportunity.--

(1) Chief Municipal Officer shall not pass any adverse order against the owner, occupier or any person responsible for construction of a building or structure of permanent nature in breach or violation of approved building construction plan or any breach or contravention of building bye-law or other parameters under this Act unless the person concerned has been afforded opportunity against such adverse order to be passed by the Chief Municipal Officer.

(2) Chief Municipal Officer shall not pass any adverse order against any registered Architect without affording opportunity of hearing to him.

(3) It shall be open to Chief Municipal Officer to pass an order stopping construction activity of a building or structure of permanent nature constructed in breach or contravention of approved construction plan or building bye-law and other parameters under the Act pending final decision by him.

327. Completion Certificate--(1) Every person giving a notice u/s 319 or every owner of a building or work to which such notice relates shall, within one month after the completion of erection of such building or execution of such work, deliver or send or cause to be delivered or sent to the Chief Municipal Officer a notice, in writing, of such completion accompanied by a certificate in the Form specified in the rules made in this behalf and shall give to the Chief Municipal Officer all necessary facilities for inspection of such building or work.

(2) No person shall occupy, or permit any other person to occupy, any such building or use, or permit any other person to use, any building or a part thereof affected by any such work until permission has been granted by the Chief Municipal Officer in this behalf in accordance with the rules and the regulations made under this Act:

Provided that if the Chief Municipal Officer fails, within a period of thirty days of receipt of the notice of completion, to communicate his refusal to grant such permission, such person may make a representation in writing to the Chief Councillor.

6. Section 327 of the Act clearly states that every person giving a notice u/s 319 or every owner of a building to whom such a notice relates, shall inform, after completion of work i.e. removal of defects, the Chief Municipal Officer of such completion and demand a certificate. If I refer to Section 319, it talks of notice by the municipal authorities with regard to deviations and actions to be taken thereunder. Thus, a conjoint reading of the two sections clearly depicts that only in case where municipal authorities have found some deviations and noticed the owner, builder or occupier thereof for its correction, then upon corrections being made accordingly, the owner, occupier or builder has to seek "completion certificate" before using the building. It is not that every builder upon completion of the building has to automatically procure a completion certificate before occupying the same. The sooner this confusion is removed, the better for everybody. Law as legislated does not contemplate either an "occupancy certificate" or a "completion certificate" to be taken all and sundry. It is only in a particular contingency that "completion certificate" is required and not otherwise.

7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, I direct the Municipal Commissioner to take up not only this case but all other vigilance cases on day to day hearing basis and decide the same at the earliest. Wherever, the deviation is minor or negligible, then in view of the judgment of this Court, as noticed above, the same have to be ignored. Wherever deviations are condonable and prayer for condonation is made, upon payment of condonation (requisite) fee, deviations have to be condoned. In the present case, there are three other issues as well. First is with regards clearance/permission from Airport Authority. If the permission/clearance is there, it matters little whether it was obtained prior or later to sanction. The second is with regards the height of the building. This Court in the case of Anup Kumar (supra) has already settled the position. Moreover, reference may be made also to Section 312(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act. That has to be kept in mind deciding the issue. Lastly the question of leaving space for future road widening. As per Annexure-8 petitioner submits, in the measurement itself land left for road widening is noticed. All these matters and issues have to be kept in mind while finally deciding the vigilance case. For such small issues, the user of the entire building should ordinarily be not stopped and if stopped the matter must be quickly settled. In no case, the Municipal Commissioner can sit over the matters, like in the present case for almost two months without a final decision. It must be borne in mind that the final decision has to be taken after grant of opportunity of hearing to all the concerned persons.

8. Thus, I direct the Municipal Commissioner to dispose of the proceedings within a period of one month from the date of production of this order before him.

9. Before parting learned counsel for the petitioner states that the municipal authorities are not permitting any person to come on the site. Undisputedly, the building is complete, what is going on is finishing i.e. flooring, colouring, painting, plumbing, furnishing etc. Even if the deviations are not condonable, it will make little difference in so far as other areas are concerned. Those works cannot be stopped pending decision by the Municipal Commissioner.

10. In my view, considering the nature of the deviation as pointed out and as apparent from the measurement sheet (Annexure-8), shutting the entire building complex would not be reasonable nor in my view permissible. One has to exercise powers commensurate to the situation. In such view of the matter, while holding that till the matters of deviations and alleged violations are not adjudicated finally, no one can occupy or use his premises or any part thereof, but the Municipal authorities have to permit the owners of the building to carry out the finishing work or the furnishing work as the case may be. This is also so because if ultimately it is found that deviations have to be ignored upon compounding or otherwise and if work had been stopped for more than two months, who would compensate for the delay. This order of this Court is limited to the peculiar facts of this case because of the nature of alleged deviations. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.