A building plan submitted to a municipal authority is deemed sanctioned only if submitted correctly; failure to provide required particulars negates this status.

1. In the instant Rule the petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the notice and / or letter dated 5/7-6-1976 and pray for writs directing the respondents namely the Corporation of Calcutta and its officers to forthwith issue in favour of the petitioner No. 1, a Co - operative Housing Society, sanction or permission to execute work in accordance with the plan submitted on June 26, 1974. The petitioners also pray for quashing and / or cancelling the impugned order of refusal of the plan for sanction dated June 26, 1974 as contained in the aforesaid Memo of the Corporation of Calcutta dated 5/7th June, 1976 and also a notice under S.416 of the Calcutta - Municipal Act dated July 15, 1976. The petitioners also Fray for other appropriate writs in the nature of prohibition and also suitable directions restraining the respondents from giving any effect or further effect to the said memo of refusal and the said notice under S.416 of the Calcutta Municipal Act .

2. The short fact concerning the instant Civil Rule is that the petitioner No. 1 is a Co - operative Society duly registered on 4th November, 1974 under the West Bengal Co - operative Society Registration Act, 1973 having its by - laws also registered under the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 37 are members of the said Co - operative Society and are citizens of India. Premises No. 9/3, Hungerford Street, Calcutta - 17 originally belonged to Protap Singh, son of the late Maharaj Chandrachar Singh and on or about 19th Dec. 1973 the said Protap Singh entered into an agreement for sale of the said premises in favour of one Sri Trilok Chand Harichand Mehra and Bridhraj Bhandari for a consideration of Rs.9,74,595/- and it was stipulated in the said agreement that the conveyance in respect of the said premises would be executed in favour of the said Trilok Chand Harichand or Bridhraj Bhandari or in the names of their nominees. By the said agreement a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid as earnest money to the said vendor Protap Singh. On July 18, 1974, a registered agreement was executed between the said Sri Protap Singh and Trilok Chand Mehra and Bridhraj Bhandari for sale of the said premises inter alia providing therein that the purchasers had requested the vendor to give possession of the premises so as to enable the purchaser to proceed with the application for sanction of a building plan by the Corporation of Calcutta and possession had also been given by the said Protap Singh to the said Trilok Chand Mehra and Bridhraj Bhandari. It may be stated that the Co - operative Society in question was not registered at that time. According to the petitioners, it was further provided for in the said Deed of Agreement that Protap Singh had received from time to time a sum of Rs.8,44,595/- towards the consideration money and the said Protap Singh would execute and register proper deed of conveyance in favour of the Society after its registration and upon the Society's making payment of a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- being the balance amount of the consideration money. On 20th Mar, 1975, the said Pratap Singh and his wife Maharani Prativa Manjuri Devi and his son Rajeswari Singh executed a deed of conveyance in favour of the petitioner society namely Latika Co - operative Housing Society Ltd. In terms of the aforesaid agreement, after getting possession of the said premises on June 26, 1974 the Latika Housing Society submitted a plan for a multistoried residential building at premises No. 9/3 Hungerford Street and the plan was prepared with a view to accommodate all the members of the Society. The Corporation of Calcutta acknowledged the submission of the building plan by granting a receipt. On 1st Aug. 1974, the Municipal Authority issued requisitions under R.59 of Sch. XVI of the Calcutta Municipal Act raising certain objections. The petitioners contend that without prejudice to their contention that the plan must be deemed to have been sanctioned under