Judgement

VAIDIALINGAM, J.: This appeal, by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated August 11, 1967 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 85 of 1967. The Letters Patent Bench had confirmed an order of the learned Chief Justice, Delhi High Court, dated May 10, 1967 whereby a writ of mandamus had been issued to the appellant to approve the plans submitted by the respondents and grant the sanction asked for.

2. The circumstances leading up to the issue of the writ of mandamus against the appellant may be briefly adverted to. The respondents are the owners and are in possession of the building bearing municipal door Nos. 3766 to 3776 situated in the main Chawri Bazar Delhi. As the building was an old construction and required urgent and extensive repairs, on October 16, 1965 the respondents submitted to the appellant plans for its sanction for execution of work consisting of repairs, additions as well as alterations to the said building. The Commissioner of the appellant Corporation, by letter dated February 4, 1966 informed the respondents that their application for execution of construction work in respect of house Nos. 3766 to 3776 had been refused on the grounds "that the proposal was under acquisition and also effected in the "ROW" and the land was residential against proposal of commercial".

3. A controversy appears to have been raised by the appellant before the High Court that the application by the respondents, related also to certain other municipal door numbers, but as that is not material for the present purpose, we do not refer to the same. Attempts made by the respondents to satisfy the Commissioner that their application was quite legal and that there was no violation of any law or rules having failed, they filed Civil Writ Petition No. 410-D of 1966 in the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi, under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the appellant to accord sanction to the plan for execution of work in respect of the building as per their application of October 16, 1965. According to the respondents it was incumbent on the Commissioner of the appellant, under Section 336 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (Act LXVI of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation Act), to sanction the plans of a building or execution of a work unless such a building or work contravened any of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 336 or Section 340 of the Corporation Act. It was further stated that the plan submitted by them did not contravene any of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Sec. 336 or Section 340 of the Corporation Act. The reasons given for rejection, by the Commissioner, were also challenged as being vague and unintelligible apart from being extraneous to the provisions of the Act. The respondents further averred that the buildings required extensive repairs as was clear from the notice, dated March 3, 1966, issued by the Commissioner of the appellant stating that the building posed a danger to the residents of the area and that the necessary repairs had to be carried out immediately after obtaining sanction from the building department, and threatening penal consequences if the respondents did not comply with the notice. On these grounds they urged that the order dated February 4, 1966 passed by the Commissioner refusing to accord sanction was illegal and ultra vires and in consequence they prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to accord sanction, as asked for by them.

4. On behalf of the appellant, the Assistant Engineer had filed a counter affidavit. The material averments, relevant for the present purpose, are that the respondents are the owners of the premises and that the construction was old and required repairs; but the plans submitted by the respondents did not conform to bye-laws and c