The CMDA had no authority or jurisdiction under the Planning Act to refuse permission to construct on the petitioner's plot of land on speculation and the CMC could not refuse to sanction the building plan in the absence of a 'No objection certificate' from the CMDA.

Tarun Chatterjee, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against an order dated 29th June, 1987 passed by a Single Judge of this Court on an application filed by the appellant (Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority) for recalling and/or modification of the order dated 18th March, 1987 passed by him in a Writ proceeding.

2. The facts of the present case are as follows :

The petitioner purchased two cottahs of land being a part and portion of premises No. 15, Dum Dum Road, Calcutta-30 (subsequently referred as 31/2A Birpara Lane, Calcutta) for valuable consideration by a registered deed of sale dated 16th August, 1984. After purchase of the same, the petitioner filed an application for mutating her name in the records of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the CMC) and on mutation and separation by the CMC the said premises case to be numbered as 31/2A, Birpara Lane, Calcutta. The petitioner thereafter on or about 24th February, 1985 for the purpose of constructing a residential house. of her own submitted a building plan before the CMC.

The CMC in its turn directed the petitioner to obtain a 'No objection' Certificate from the Calcutta Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as CIT) and also from the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as CMDA).

The CIT on 7th November, 1985 issued a 'No objection' certificate in favour 'of the petitioner by which the CIT did not raise any objection against the proposed construction of a residential building by the petitioner. The CMDA however by a letter dated 19th February, 1986 refused permission for construction of the residential building of the petitioner on the ground that the land in question has been earmarked for Rehabilitation Site under the Urban Renewal Scheme of CMDA around Dum Dum Railway Station. The CMDA did not issue any "No objection certificate" in favour of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground. The CMC in its turn could not sanction the building plan of the petitioner on the ground of her inability to get a 'No objection certificate' from CMDA. Finding no other alternative the petitioner on 27th February, 1987 moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Appellant and others praying for a direction upon the Appellant not to give any effect to and or to withdraw or cancel or rescind the letter dated 19th day of February 19.86 issued by the CMDA whereby the CMDA had refused to accord permission to construct residential building on the aforesaid plot of land to the Writ Petitioner. It was also prayed in the said Writ Petition that the CMDA be directed to issue 'No objection' certificate and the CMC be directed 10 sanction the building plan submitted by the petitioner with the CMC. At the time of moving the said Writ Application ad-interim order of injunction restraining the Appellant and the CMC their agents, servants and subordinates and each of them from taking any steps in terms of the purported objection of the CMDA by its letter dated 19th February, 1986 was issued. The petitioner was directed to serve a copy of the said order upon the Appellant and the CMC liberty was given to the Appellant and the CMC to pray before the learned Single Judge to ask for vacation and/or variation and/or modification of the said interim order upon notice to the Writ Petitioner. On 2nd March, 1987 the notice of the Writ Petition and the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 27th February, 1987 were served upon the Appellant and the CMC. On 17th March, 1987 the matter appeared in the list of the learned Single Judge but none appeared on behalf of the Appellant and the CMC and the matter was adjourned to 18th March, 1987. On 18th March, 1987 the matter again appeared in the list of the learned Single Judge and again no one appeared on behalf of the said respondents. On the same date the learned Single Judge after hearing the learned Advocate for the Writ Petitioner passed a furthe