( 1 ) A stitch in time saves nine. Present case is a classic illustration of the proverb aforenoted. A timely intervention would have saved much judicial time as also the energies of the parties who could have put to better use their time, money and energy in a more useful activity. As the facts would unfold, a simple issue has snow-balled into a complex issue. Petition filed in the year 1974 has remained pending for 31 years. Not that it did not receive the attention of the court, but unfortunately a casual attention. Short cuts were attempted. Little was it realized that a short cut need not always be the best cut.

( 2 ) PRAYER made in the writ petition is as under:-

(A) issue a Writ of Certiorari and/or such other appropriate Writ, Order or direction quashing the aforesaid impugned letters Nos. CA/2963-64/bp dated 28th august, 1973, No. F. CA/4225/bp dated 19th December, 1973, No. CA/4239/bp dated 22nd December, 1973 and No. 8977/pa/secy dated 23rd January, 1974; (b) issue a declaration that the sanction granted to the petitioners for the building-plans by the Resolution of the first respondent dated 23-7-1971 was and is unconditional, absolute and binding on the respondents. (c) issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or such other appropriate writ or Order directing the respondents to grant revalidation of the plans sanctioned by the first respondent Committee on 23-7-1971 and as applied for in the Petitioners application dated June 28, 1973 and/or the petitioners application dated 10th september, 1973; and/or grant a declaration that the revalidation of the plans sanctioned by the first respondent s Resolution dated 23-7-1971 must be deemed to have been granted; (d) issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or such other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from interfering in any manner whatsoever with the construction by the petitioners of the aforesaid multi-storeyed building at 14, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi (in accordance with the plans sanctioned by the NDMC on 23-7-1971) or denying the petitioners any facilities such as water or power for construction purposes of from taking any steps whatsoever under or pursuant to the impugned letters dated 19th and 22nd December, 1973 or otherwise on the basis that the aforesaid construction is un-authorised under the Act and Bye-laws made thereunder; ?

( 3 ) THE four impugned letters dated 28. 8. 1973, 19. 12. 1973, 22. 12. 1973 and 23. 1. 1974 read as under:- (i) Letter dated 28. 8. 1973

( 4 ) THE factual matrix Plot No. 14 Barakhamba Road, New delhi was demised in perpetuity to Bawa Milkha Singh by the President of India vide perpetual Lease dated 4. 9. 1951. On his death the plot devolved to his son Bawa Dhan singh, Petitioner No. 1. Pursuant to a family partition with effect from 12. 6. 1971 plot came to be owned by the petitioners who are the wife and sons of Bawa Dhan Singh.

( 5 ) THE plot was in an area which falls within the jurisdiction of new Delhi Municipal Committee, a body constituted under the Punjab Municipal act, 1911.

( 6 ) UNDER the perpetual lease deed, plot could be used for residential purposes. Area got declared commercial and first petitioner intended to take benefit of change in law. He desired to pull down the existing building and reconstruct a commercial building. Section 189 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 enjoined on him to obtain a sanction from the committee before he could reconstruct on the plot. On 6. 12. 1969 first petitioner submitted, as per bye-laws, 7 copies of building plans for sanction of the committee. Fee in sum of Rs. 41,359. 82 was deposited along with the plans. Sanction was refused by the committee vide resolution No: 138/38 dated 19. 12. 1969. Reason for refusal was that first petitioner had not obtained the necessary permission from the Central Government as contemplated by sub section 2 of Section 193 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.

( 7 ) FIRST petitioner resubmitted th