are not habitable space having no roof and the structures are only skeleton in nature, facilitating support to installation of pipe lines, etc. However, it is still considered as deviation for the purpose of withholding the security deposit. When we examine the impugned order, dated 14.09.2010, no opportunity was given to the Petitioner despite subsequent events after the issuance of show cause notice. There are further developments. When the violation in the top floor is not structural and meant for facilitating support to pipe lines, etc, the impugned order invoking the bank guarantees is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. The factual ground, on which, the impugned order has been challenged in the Writ Petition, is admitted. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that this Court has not directed to give further opportunity to the Petitioner. When change of circumstances/ events are admitted, the impugned order, without affording further opportunity, is illegal. The learned Additional Advocate General is unable to point out any statutory rule or regulation, justifying the invocation of the bank guarantees or collection of any money especially when development charges have been collected from the subsequent purchasers as seen from the proceedings dated 16.06.2011. In the counter affidavit, few other deviations are referred to. However, in the show cause notice, there is no reference to them. Hence, the Petitioner cannot be held liable.
