Deemed sanction under section 337 has very serious implications and if the corporation is to be tied down to a deemed sanction it is necessary that each of the details required by section 333 of the Statute must be complied with at least certainly substantially.

( 1 ) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned single Judge. The petitioners applied for and were given sanction by the Municipal Corporation for construction of a building on 19-11-1966. The building broadly was to consist of Blocks A, B and C. The sanction apparently was given subject to the condition that the structure which was existing would be demolished before the commencement of further construction. Sanction was released on 2-12-1966. There is no dispute that blocks A and C were constructed. Block B however, was not constructed.

( 2 ) IN June, 1969 the appellant applied for extension of time to complete the construction. Section 333 provides for a person applying for sanction by giving notice to the Commissioner. Section 336 provides for giving or refusing to sanction. By Section 337 (3) it is provided that if any person does not commence or execute the work within one year of the date on which the building of work is sanctioned he shall have to give notice under Section 333 for fresh sanction of the building or the work. Section 341 provides that if the building or work is not completed within the period specified it shall not be continued unless the Commissioner, on application made therefor has allowed extension of that period. Apparently as the appellant was not able to complete the building, plans for which had been sanctioned on 19-11-1966 he applied for extension of the period, in June, 1969. This matter was considered by the Building Plan Committee which ultimately by its decision of 24-8-1971 decided that his request for revalidation be rejected. The reason given was that the appellant had not demolished the existing structure and as it was still in the occupation of tenants it was not proper to allow him to build further and the decision, therefore, was that the appellant be allowed to retain the existing block and a notice issued under Section 338 for revocation. Thus the matters rested for the next 8 years.

( 3 ) UNDAUNTED however, the appellant again applied on 2-1-1979 to the Executive Engineer requesting that the construction of the above sanctioned plan dated 19-11-1966 read with 2-12-1966 was still pending and sanction be given for extension. The appellant was informed that there was no question of giving extension because the same had already been refused as far back as 12-10-1971 and that this can at the best be taken as an appeal case. The appellant agreed that this may be treated as an appeal case. The matter seems to have been taken up by the Building Plan Committee (hereinafter referred to as BPC), where the BPC decided to recommend giving of sanction subject to the appellant carrying out the whole demolition which he had undertaken and also that the plan did not violate the Master Plan. No communication or approval was sent by the Corporation or any of its officials (because as it transpires from the record, the matter was being enquired into further and no definite decision had yet been taken ). The petitioner, thereupon wrote to the Corporation making a grievance as to why sanction was not being sent to him. No action having been taken the appellant filed the writ petition in this court, which having been dismissed, this appeal has been filed.

( 4 ) THE main points which were urged before the learned single Judge and which have been repeated before us are as follows : (1) The appellant says that his letter of 2-1-1979 is a notice under Section 333 of the Act and as no refusal to sanction the building plan within 60 days as required by Section 337 (1) was communicated to him its result must be that the Commissioner shall be deemed to have accorded sanction to the building or work. (2) The alternative argument was that as a matter of fact the Competent Authority had sanctioned the plan at its meeting of the Building Plan Committee held on 16-1-1979 and the withholding of that sanction which was merely a formal act by the respondents wa