IMPORTANT POINT
In the matter of sanction of buildings for construction and restricting their height, the paramount consideration is public interest and convenience and not the interest of a particular person or a party.

Headnote:Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980-Sections 173 to 175 and 215-Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1991-Rule 20(3) as amended w.e.f. 15.7.1994, consequential resolution dated 18.7.1994-Sanction for construction of three additional floors to multi-storeyed complex which is already constructed upto four floors-Respondent-company first applied for sanction for construction of its complex upto seven floors on 6.7.1992-Sanction not granted within the prescribed period of sixty days-Writ petition-Single Judge held that sanction cannot be granted as the Rules have been amended and resolution of the Corporation prohibits multi-storeyed construction above one plus two floors-However, Division Bench of the High Court taking a contrary view has held that sanction having been granted in earlier writ petition with liberty reserved in favour of company to seek sanction upto 7th floor, it was not open to Corporation to refuse sanction-Rules were amended when application for sanction of additional three floors was pending with the Corporation-Whether any vested right had been created in favour of the company to seek sanction for construction of additional three floors irrespective of subsequent amendment to Building Rules-(No).
       Held : The subject of sanction of construction is governed by the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations as also the Resolution of the Corporation which was taken with approval of Mayor-in-Council. The statutory provisions regulating sanction for construction within the municipal area are intended to ensure proper administration of the area and provide proper civic amenities to it. The paramount considerations of regulatory provisions for construction activities are public interest and convenience. On the subject of seeking sanction for construction, no vested right can be claimed by any citizen divorced from public interest or public convenience. (Para 17)
       We do not find that there was any deliberate delay on the part of the Corporation. We have found that the stand of the Corporation, on the basis of Building Rules, cannot be held to be erroneous that for seeking three additional floors, the company was required to file fresh application for sanction with necessary particulars, documents, plans and enclosures. The company complied with the necessary requirements but thereafter, the Building Rules were amended and restrictions have been imposed on height of buildings on the GT Road. It cannot, therefore, be held that the action of the Corporation is malicious. The Building Rules were amended by the State and the Corporation can have no bona fide or mala fide hand in it. After the amended Building Rules were notified, the Corporation on relevant ground of limited resources for civic amenities in a congested city like Howrah, with the approval of Mayor-in-Council, could legally impose legitimate restrictions on the height of buildings, on specified wards, roads and localities. It is to be noted from the relevant resolution of the Corporation that restrictions with regard to the height of buildings are not imposed only on GT Road but there are several specified wards and areas in which such restrictions are applied. This Court cannot accept that such a legislative change and consequent resolution came to be passed and got approved only to frustrate the pending application of the company. (Para 34)
       In the matter of sanction of buildings for construction and restricting their height, the paramount consideration is public interest and convenience and not the interest of a particular person or a party. The sanction now directed to be granted by the High Court for construction of additional floors in favour of respondent is clearly in violation of the amended Building Rules and the Resolution of the Corporation which restrict heights of buildings on GT Road. This Court in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution cannot support the impugned order of the High Court of making an exception in favour of the respondent - company by issuing directions for grant of sanction for construction of building with height in violation of the amended Building Rules and the resolution of the Corporation passed consequent thereupon. (Para 38)
       For all the above reasons, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was right in rejecting the prayer of the respondent company in public interest and the Division Bench of the High Court committed an error in directing grant of sanction for further construction above four floors to the respondent company in clear violation of the existing building rules and the resolution of the Corporation. (Para 39)

JUDGMENT

Dharmadhikari, J.-By this appeal, the Howrah Municipal Corporation challenges the Division Bench judgment dated 05.9.1997 of the High Court of Calcutta whereby it has reversed the judgment dated 6.8.1996 passed in Writ Petition No.2561 of 1994 of learned Single Judge of that Court. The Division Bench has directed grant of sanction for construction of three additional floors to the multi-storeyed complex which is already constructed up to four floors belonging to respondent - Ganges Rope Co. Ltd.

2. The learned Single Judge in his order found that although the sanction for construction for additional three floors to the existing complex, sought by the respondent - company, was delayed by the Corporation without any justification, its prayer for grant of sanction for additional three floors cannot be granted as the Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules 1991 framed under the provisions of Howrah Municipal Corporation Act 1980 (for short "the Act") have been amended and the resolution of the Corporation issued thereunder prohibit multi-storeyed construction above one plus two floors on G.T. Road, Howrah.

3. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment by taking a contrary view has held that sanction for construction of the multi-storeyed complex of respondent - company up to fourth floor having been granted by orders of the High Court in the earlier Writ Petition with liberty reserved in favour of the company to seek sanction up to 7th floor, it was not open to the Corporation to refuse sanction only because after expiry of the stipulated period of sixty days provided in the rules for grant of sanction or refusal and expiry of the extended period granted by the High Court, Building Rules have been amended prohibiting construction of multi-storeyed buildings above third floor on the G.T. Road, Howrah.

4. Only few relevant dates and facts are necessary for deciding the controversial issue regarding sanction of additional three floors to the multi-storied complex. The respondent-company first applied for sanction for construction of its complex up to seven floors on 6.7.1992. Since the sanction was not granted within the prescribed period of sixty days in accordance with the Building Rules, it approached the High Court in Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge made the following directions in his order passed on 26.4.1993:-

"I dispose of this application with a direction upon the Howrah Municipal Corporation authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioners application for grant of sanction of the building plan submitted by them on 6th July, 1992, within a period of four weeks from date in accordance with the provisions of Howrah Municipal Corporation and the Building Rules.

In default, the parties are at liberty to mention the matter."

5. The period granted to the Corporation to decide the application for sanction was extended by a further period of three weeks by learned Judge on 28.5.1993. Since the Corporation did not either grant or refuse the sanction even within the extended time, the respondent approached the High Court again on 23.12.1993. The Court passed the following order :-

"It appears that sanction of building Plan within Howrah Municipal area is permissible up to ground plan 4th floor level and as contended on behalf of the petitioners even up to 7th floor level.

This submission made on behalf of the appellants is not disputed on behalf of the Howrah Municipal Corporation.

Having regard to the above, I dispose of the application by directing the Howrah Municipal Corporation to grant sanction to the petitioners Plan submitted on 6th July 1992 up to the 4th floor level, if all the requirements are duly complied with by the writ petitioners. Such sanction must be given by the Howrah Municipal Corporation within one month from the date of communication of this order. The Howrah Municipal Corporation is directed to notify the petitioners the necessary sanctioning copies and the same is to b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1277

IMPORTANT POINTIn the matter of sanction of buildings for construction and restricting their height, the paramount consideration is public interest and convenience and not the interest of a particular person or a party.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
In the matter of sanction of buildings for construction and restricting their height, the paramount consideration is public interest and convenience and not the interest of a particular person or a party.