The provisions of deemed sanction under Section 337(1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, are not applicable to applications that are not valid notices under Section 333 or 334.

( 1 ) THE petitioner are owners of building No. 2831 to 2845 at Bara Bazar, Kashmiri Gate Delhi. The original plan for construction of commercial building consisting of shops and offices was sanctioned by the respondents in 1966. Broadly speaking there were three blocks of construction. Block a and c were connected by Block b . Block a and Block c were constructed by the petitioners and they applied for a completion certificate in 1969. There is some dispute regarding issuance of the completion certificate as the respondents claim that there were certain deviations and unauthorised constructions, and the petitioners claim deemed issuance u/s 346. According to the original sanction the entire construction in Blocks a , b and c was to be completed within one year. No extension of time was sought before the completion of one year. The sanction was thus exhausted after the said stipulated period. Thirteen years thereafter, that is, on 2. 1. 1979 the petitioners applied to the respondents for revalidation of the original sanctioned plans and for extension of time for construction of Block b . The respondents were faced with several problems, such as removal of the unauthorised constructions earlier made, provision of proper amenities for the commercial establishment and the fact that the existing structures had already exceeded 25 per cent of the total area which was permissible under the Master Plan. When the plan was sanctioned in 1966 permissible construction was upto 60 per cent of the total area, under the building bye-laws of the Corporation. By Notification dated 24. 12. 76 issued by Government of India an amendment was introduced in the statutory Master Plan for Delhi whereby the permissible covered area for construction of commercial establishments was reduced to 25 percent of the total area. Faced with these difficulties the Municipal Commissioner took a decision on 8. 11. 79 of not permitting the construction of Block b . On 10. 3. 80 the petitioners called upon the respondents to expedite their decision for re-validation of the original plan. They also warned the respondents that if the decision was not expedited, they would be compelled to approach the Court of Law. Thereafter, on 15th March, 1980 the present writ petition was filed.

( 2 ) THE petitioners claimed the following relief in the writ petition : "it is most respectfully prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents directing the respondents to issue a letter of revalidation/sanction/extension of time for the completion of the pending building work (incompleted so far) in accordance with the sanctioned plans and to release and deliver the sanctioned plans in respect of property bearing municipal numbers 2831 to 2845 and 2761 in Bara Bazar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi with endorsements therein as required under law and also directing them not to interfere with or to put any obstruction in the construction of the building and not to demolish any part of the said buildings or any construction so far effected or which may be effected therein according to the sanctioned plans. "

( 3 ) ALTHOUGH the prayer in the writ petition is that the respondents should be directed to revalidate the plan sanctioned in 1966, the additional contention of the petitioners is, that, it should be deemed that their application for revalidation and extension is sanctioned by virtue of Section 337 (1) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Section 337 (1) provides that if the Commissioner does not communicate his refusal to sanction the plan within sixty days it shall be deemed that the plan has been sanctioned.

( 4 ) BEFORE answering these principal submissions made in the writ petition it is better to look more closely to the relevant provisions of the Act in this regard. Chapter XVI of the Act lays down Building Regulations. The Corporation has also framed bye-laws for further implementation of the said Regula