The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Building Bye-laws of GMC in the context of a construction dispute, emphasizing that the construction of the 5th floor was within the permissible limit based on the width of the road and front open space.

A. Hazarika, J.

1. Heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S.S. Dey, advocate appearing for the petitioner, Also heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Guwahati Municipal Corporation.

2. The writ petitioner in the instant petition is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order/decision dated 19.9.06 passed by the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Respondent No. 2, disposing of the representations dated 19.6.06 and 17.8.06 submitted by the writ petitioner for granting No Objection Certificate (NOC for short) for 5th floor constructed by it.

3. The petitioner company with the intention of starting a project to construct a multistoried building in a plot of and measuring 8.03 are covered by Dag No. 2814 (new), 170 (old) of K.P. Patta No. 42 (old), 1218 (new) in village Jatia of Guwahati town, submitted the building's structural design and drawings to the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC for short), seeking permission to build 1st to 5th floor accompanied by a certificate issued by the authorized/approved consultant architect. But permission was granted up to 4th floor only. On appeal, the Standing Appeals Committee of GMC approved the construction of 5th floor vide order dated 7.9.05, after apparently hearing the Associate Planner of GMC, who represented the Commissioner, GMC. The decision of the Appeals Committee was based on the fact that the width of the road abutting the proposed building was 24 feet as against the required 25 feet, i.e. a shortage of just one foot, which was too insignificant to deprive the petitioner of constructing the 5th floor.

4. Armed with the aforesaid order dated 7.9.05, the petitioner proceeded to construct the 5th floor, in the process investing Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rupees sixty lakhs). On 9.11.05, when the construction was almost finished, the Associate Planner of GMC issued a notice asking the petitioner to stop the construction of their G+5 building and further to produce the NOC and the Approval Building Plan. To this, the petitioner replied by submitting that the Standing Appeals Committee had approved the construction up to 5th floor and that construction had been carried out strictly as per the approved plan. On 15.6.06, the Associate Planner, GMC issued another notice repeating the same direction as contained in the previous notice dated 9.11.05. However, in the second notice dated 15.6.06, it was further observed that,

NB though the SAC approved, the proposal (5th floor), final NOC is yet to be issued as per approval of the Technical Committee, hence you are directed to stop the construction.

5. The petitioner again submitted a reply to this notice on 19.6.06, which was substantially same as to their earlier reply. But in this reply it was further stated that after the order of the Standing Appeals Committee, a seal was inserted in the body of the original NOC dated 8.11.04 marking "up to 5th floor only".

6. With no final order forthcoming from the GMC, the petitioner had to move this Court vide WP(C) No. 2971/06 praying for appropriate relief. This court vide order dated 26.7.06 inter alia directed the GMC to consider and dispose of the reply filed by the writ petitioner pursuant to the stop construction notice within a period of 10 days. It was also directed that further action that may be taken by the Corporation shall depend upon the final order to be passed by the Corporation on such reply filed by the writ petitioner, until such proceeding was finally decided by the GMC, the petitioner should not make any further construction of the building in question. Subsequently, the petitioner made another representation to the Commissioner, GMC on 17.8.06 inter alia repeating his defence against the stop construction notices. The Commissioner, GMC, ultimately disposed of the matter on 19.9.06 inter alia declining to issue NOC f