Ajit K. Sengupta, J.: These two appeals have been preferred from a common judgment and order dated 21st December, 1990 whereby the learned trial Judge has in effect dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants on the finding that they had become infructuous. In both the writ petitions the appellants/writ petitioners challenged the Constitutional validity of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Ordinance, 1989 and the Calcutta Municipal (Amendment) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1990 Amendment Act") which replaced that Ordinance.

2. The 1990 Amendment Act inserted a new Section in the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, namely s. 398A, as a result of which, for a period of one year from 18th December, 1989 (i.e. the date on which the 1990 Amendment Act came into force), there was a total embargo on any person applying for sanction of any plan to erect a building exceeding 13½ metres in height. The constitutional challenge is basically directed against this embargo.

3. The learned trial Judge heard the writ petitions at length. Since the embargo was for a period of one year from 18th December, 1989, the learned trial Judge in his judgment and