* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ LPA No. 268/2003
Judgment reserved on: April 16, 2010
% Judgment delivered on: May 05, 2010
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
Town Hall
Chandni Chowk
Delhi. ...Appellant
Through Ms. Madhu Tewatia with Ms. Sidhi
Arora, Advocates.
Versus
M/s Holistic Farms Pvt. Ltd.
4, Pamposh Enclave,
New Delhi - 110 048. ...Respondent
Through Mr. Nageshwar Pandey with Mr. Anup
Kumar Sinha, Advocates.
Coram:
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 1 of 23
MADAN B. LOKUR, ACJ
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (the Corporation) is
aggrieved by an order dated 23rd October, 2002 passed by a learned
Single Judge in WP (C) No. 7697/2000. According to the Corporation,
the learned Single Judge erred in directing release of the building plans
of the Respondent even though they were not in conformity with the
building bye-laws. We agree with the Corporation that the building
plans were sanctioned conditionally and the crucial date when the
building plans were considered, the building bye-laws relied upon were
not operative. Therefore, the Corporation had no option but to reject the
building plans submitted by the Respondent.
2. At the outset, we may state that the view canvassed by the
Corporation in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge is quite
different from the view placed before the learned Single Judge in the
review petition and also before us. We have proceeded on the basis of
the view canvassed before the learned Single Judge in the review
petition and also before us.
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 2 of 23
The facts:
3. The Respondent is the owner of a plot measuring 1.029
hectares in village Rajokari, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The
building bye-laws applicable to the area were published by a notification
dated 23rd June, 1983. The Master Plan for Delhi was later amended by
a notification dated 23rd July, 1998 by virtue of which the maximum
coverage and height of dwelling units for farm houses such as that of the
Respondent was increased. However, and this is important, the building
bye-laws were not correspondingly changed or modified in respect of
farm houses, which is what we are concerned with. Learned counsel for
the Corporation submitted, in the alternative, that the legal position
remains the same even if the building bye-laws were modified or
deemed to have been modified.
4. In order to take advantage of the increase offered, the
Respondent submitted an application to the Corporation on or about 17th
April, 2000 for constructing a dwelling unit on its plot as per the norms
laid down in the Master Plan for Delhi (as amended on 23rd July, 1998).
The application contained all the requisite information and documents
and was duly processed by the Corporation. According to the
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 3 of 23
Respondent, the site was inspected, the title of the Respondent was
verified and thereafter the building plans were sanctioned on 23 rd May,
2000. The sanction required the Respondent to obtain a No Objection
Certificate from the Land Acquisition Department and deposit the levy
on account of a change in the floor area ratio.
5. It will be noticed from the above that the “sanction” of the
building plans on 23rd May, 2000 was conditional on the Respondent
obtaining a No Objection Certificate as well as depositing the necessary
charges.
6. A No Objection Certificate was applied for by the Respondent
and it was issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Land
Acquisition) on 19th June, 2000 and on the same day the Respondent
says that he deposited the levy.
The notifications and cause of action:
7. On 7th June, 2000 the Ministry of Urban Development of the
Government of India published two notifications being S.O. 557(E) and
S.O. 558(E). These notifications were issued before the No Objection
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 4 of 23
Certificate was obtained by the Respondent on 19 th June, 2000 but after
the conditional sanction of building plans on 23 rd May, 2000.
8. In the first notification being S.O. 557(E) dated 7th June, 2000
the Ministry of Urban Development (Delhi Division) stated that the
building bye-laws stand modified to the extent mentioned in paragraphs
1 to 3 of the annexure to the notification dated 23 rd July, 1998. What we
are concerned with is paragraph 4 of the annexure to the notification
dated 23rd July, 1998. This paragraph concerns itself with the size,
ground coverage, floor area ratio, height etc. of a farm house.
Significantly, the building bye-laws were not modified to incorporate
paragraph 4 of the annexure to the notification dated 23 rd July, 1998.
The Corporation has placed heavy reliance on this fact. We are not
reproducing the contents of the notification dated 23 rd July, 1998 or
paragraph 4 of the annexure thereto, since their relevance is limited only
to the extent mentioned above.
9. The notification S.O. 557(E) notified all concerned that the
building plans to be sanctioned in accordance with the amended
building bye-laws (as amended by paragraphs 1 to 3 of the annexure to
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 5 of 23
the notification dated 23rd July, 1998) would be subject to the provisions
of the layout plans / service plans already sanctioned, and no such
layout / service plans would be amended till arrangements for the
provision of augmented municipal services such as water, power,
sewerage etc have been made. It is important to note that there is no
mention of the sanction of building plans in terms of paragraph 4 of the
annexure to the notification dated 23 rd July, 1998 simply because the
building bye-laws were not modified to incorporate the changes brought
about by the said paragraph 4. This notification S.O. 557(E) dated 7th
June, 2000 reads as follows:
“S.O. 557 (E) – In exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 349A of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 and Section 260 of the New
Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994, the Unified
Building Bye-Laws, 1983 stand modified to the
extent as indicated in paras 1 to 3 of the
Annexure to this Ministry’s Notification of even
number dated 23rd July, 1998 as required under
Section 483 of the DMC Act and Section 388 of
the NDMC Act. The building plans to be
sanctioned in accordance with the amended bye-
laws would be subject to provisions of the layout
plans and service plans already sanctioned, and no
such layout/service plans would be amended till
arrangements for provision of augmented
municipal services such as water, power,
sewerage, road widening, circulation, parking,
parks (green areas), etc. have been made. No plot-
housing can be converted into group-housing.”
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 6 of 23
(emphasis given)
10. By the second notification [S.O. 558(E) dated 7th June, 2000], a
modification was proposed to the Master Plan for Delhi to the effect that
the planning/development control norms for farm houses would revert to
those existing prior to the notification dated 23 rd July, 1998. Objections
were invited to the proposed modification, and the deletion of paragraph
4 of the notification dated 23rd July, 1998 from the Master Plan for
Delhi. The notification S.O. 558(E) dated 7th June, 2000 reads as
follows:
“S.O.558(E) – The following amendments /
modifications which the Central Government
propose to make in the Master Plan for Delhi 2001
are hereby published for public information. Any
person having any objection or suggestion may
send the same in writing to the Under Secretary,
Delhi Division, Ministry of Urban Development,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110 011, within a
period of 30 days from the date of this Notice.
The person making the objection or suggestion
should also give his name and address.
Modification:
The Planning / Development Control norms for
Farm Houses will be the same as existing prior to
the Notification dated July 23, 1998. Para 4 of the
said Notification dated 23.7.1998 would stand
deleted.”
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 7 of 23
11. Immediately on the issuance of the above notifications, on 8th
June, 2000 the Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment informed all
concerned, including the Commissioner of the Corporation, that as
required by Section 483 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957,
the Unified Building Bye-laws of 1983 stand modified to the extent as
indicated. It was clarified that the planning / development control
norms for farm houses in terms of the notification dated 23 rd July, 1998
stand suspended with effect from 7th June, 2000. In other words, the
position as obtaining prior to 23rd July, 1998 would alone be operative
and therefore any building plans submitted for examination and
approval should be considered only in the light of the pre-23rd July,
1998 norms. The communication dated 8th June, 2000 reads as follows:
“MOST IMMEDIATE
No. K-12016/5/79-DDIA/VA/IB
Government of India
Ministry of Urban Affairs & Employment
(Department of Urban Development)Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi
Dated: 8th June, 2000
1. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
2. The Vice-Chairman, DDA.
3. The Chairperson, NDMC.
4. The Commissioner, MCD.
5. The Land & Development Officer, Land &
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 8 of 23
Development Office.
Subject: - Modification in the Unified
Building Bye-laws, 1983.
Sir,
I am directed to state that the Unified
Building Bye-laws, 1983 stand modified to the
extent as indicated in this Ministry’s Notification
of even No. dated 07.06.2000 as required under
Section 483 of the DMC Act, 1957 and Section
388 of the NDMC Act, 1994 (copy enclosed).
2. It may be noted that para 4 of the
Annexure of this Ministry’s Notification dated
23.7.98 which pertains to the planning /
development control norms for Farm Houses
stands suspended with effect from 07.06.2000.
The position as obtaining before the notification
of 23rd July, 1998 will alone be operative. Any
building plans submitted before the local body
for examination and approval will be
considered in the light of the pre-23.7.98 norms.
You are also requested to ensure that a complete
list of farm houses along with the area sanctioned
and area constructed is sent to the Ministry
urgently.
3. The DDA and the local bodies are, therefore,
requested to take further action in the matter
accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(V.K. Mishra)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of IndiaEncl: As above.” (emphasis supplied)
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 9 of 23
12. Effectively, therefore, the position on the ground was that:
Though the Master Plan for Delhi was amended by the
notification dated 23rd July, 1998 there was no corresponding
amendment in the building bye-laws with regard to farm houses.
Alternatively, even if the building bye-laws were correspondingly
amended, their amendment stood “suspended” by the notifications
dated 7th June, 2000 read with the letter dated 8 th June, 2000
issued by the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment.
On the basis of the notification dated 23rd July, 1998 the
Respondent applied for sanction of building plans (well before 7th
June, 2000) with an increased coverage and height for a farm
house.
The Respondent was granted a conditional sanction for its
building plans on 23rd May, 2000 in terms of the notification
dated 23rd July, 1998 [though not in terms of the building bye-
laws which were either not correspondingly amended or were
suspended in respect of farm houses].
Before the Respondent could fulfill the conditions laid down on
23rd May, 2000 the notifications dated 7th June, 2000 were issued.
Effectively, therefore, the building plans of the Respondent could
not be processed except in accordance with the pre 23 rd July, 1998
building bye-laws.
13. As noted above, it is after these developments that on 19th June,
2000 a No Objection Certificate was issued to the Respondent by the
Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) and the charges
deposited by the Respondent. According to the Respondent the No
Objection Certificate relates back to the sanction dated 23 rd May, 2000
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 10 of 23
while according to the Corporation, the No Objection Certificate is
meaningless, since the conditional sanction was null and void or
inoperative since the corresponding building bye-laws for farm houses
were either not amended or if they were amended, then they stood
suspended in view of the two notifications dated 7th June, 2000.
14. On 3rd July, 2000 the Respondent was asked to submit fresh
building plans in terms of the two notifications dated 7th June, 2000 read
with the letter dated 8th June, 2000 issued by the Ministry of Urban
Affairs and Employment. A reminder was sent to the Respondent on
18th October, 2000 to the same effect. In the meanwhile, on 7 th August,
2000 the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment notified the
amendments to Master Plan for Delhi as proposed on 7th June, 2000
after considering all the objections received.
15. Aggrieved by these events, including the requirement of
submitting fresh building plans, the Respondent filed a writ petition in
this Court which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. It was held
that the building plans of the Respondent were sanctioned on 23 rd May,
2000 but they were unreasonably not released and so the Respondent
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 11 of 23
was entitled to construct his dwelling unit in accordance with those
plans.
16. The view canvassed by the Corporation before the learned
Single Judge was that in view of the notification dated 7 th August, 2000
reverting the Master Plan for Delhi to the pre-23rd July, 1998 position,
the application of the Respondent for sanction of building plans stood
rejected. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that since the
building plans were sanctioned on 23rd May, 2000 and all the conditions
were met by the Respondent on 19th June, 2000 there was no reason for
the Corporation to withhold release of the building plans more
particularly since the notification dated 7 th August, 2000 issued by the
Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment came much after the
conditions were met by the Respondent for sanction of the building
plans.
Submissions and discussion:
17. Before us, the contention of learned counsel for the
Corporation is two-fold: Firstly, that in fact the building bye-laws were
not amended to bring them in consonance with the Master Plan for
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 12 of 23
Delhi as amended on 23rd July, 1998. For this, reliance is placed on
notification S.O. No.557(E) which clearly mentions that the building
bye-laws stand modified to the extent mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 3 of
the annexure to the notification dated 23rd July, 1998. There is no
mention of an amendment to the building bye-laws in terms of
paragraph 4 of the annexure to the notification dated 23 rd July, 1998. As
mentioned above, we are concerned with paragraph 4 of the annexure to
the notification since that deals with farm houses. The contention of
learned counsel for the Corporation was that since the building bye-laws
were not amended, there was no question of the building plans being
sanctioned in accordance with paragraph 4 of the annexure to the
notification dated 23rd July, 1998. Secondly, that in any case, by the two
notifications dated 7th June, 2000 read with the letter of the Ministry of
Urban Affairs and Employment dated 8th June, 2000 there was a brake
or suspension on further sanction of building plans in respect of farm
houses, such as the one that we are concerned with. Thereafter, the pre
23rd July, 1998 building bye-laws became applicable by virtue of the
notification dated 7th August, 2000 once again modifying the Master
Plan for Delhi.
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 13 of 23
18. We may also take note of Section 337 of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957 (the DMC Act) which reads as follows:
“337. When building or work may be proceeded
with. – (1) Where within a period of sixty days, or
in cases falling under clause (b) of section 331
within a period of thirty days, after the receipts of
any notice under section 333 or section 334 or of
the further information, if any, required under
section 335 the Commissioner does not refuse to
sanction the building or work or upon refusal,
does not communicate the refusal to the person
who has given the notice, the Commissioner shall
be deemed to have accorded sanction to the
building or work and the person by whom the
notice has been given shall be free to commence
and proceed with the building or work in
accordance with his intention as expressed in the
notice and the documents and plans accompanying
the same:
Provided that if it appears to the
Commissioner that the site of the proposed
building or work is likely to be affected by any
scheme of acquisition of land for any public
purpose or by any proposed regular line of a
public street or extension, improvement, widening
or alteration of any street, the Commissioner may
withhold sanction of the building or work for such
period not exceeding three months as he deems fit
and the period of sixty days or as the case may be,
the period of thirty days specified in this sub-
section shall be deemed to commence from the
date of the expiry of the period for which the
sanction has been withheld.
(2) Where a building or work is sanctioned or is
deemed to have been sanctioned by the
Commissioner under sub-section (1), the personLPA No. 268/2003 Page 14 of 23
who has given the notice shall be bound to erect
the building or execute the work in accordance
with such sanction but not so as to contravene any
of the provisions of this Act or any other law or of
any bye-law made thereunder.
(3) If the person or anyone lawfully claiming
under him does not commence the erection of the
building or the execution of the work within one
year of the date on which the building or work is
sanctioned or is deemed to have been sanctioned,
he shall have to give notice under section 333 or,
as the case may be, under section 334 for fresh
sanction of the building or the work and the
provisions of this section shall apply in relation to
such notice as they apply in relation to the original
notice.
(4) Before commencing the erection of a building
or execution of a work within the period specified
in sub-section (3), the person concerned shall give
notice to the Commissioner of the proposed date
of the commencement of the erection of the
building or the execution of the work:
Provided that if the commencement does
not take place within seven days of the date so
notified, the notice shall be deemed not to have
been given and a fresh notice shall be necessary in
this behalf.”
19. A perusal of sub-section (1) of the aforesaid Section shows that
it concerns itself with the grant or deemed grant or refusal of sanction
for the construction of a building. Sub-section (2) deals with a situation
where the building or work is sanctioned (or is deemed to have been
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 15 of 23
sanctioned) then the person desirous of making the construction shall be
bound to do so in accordance with the sanction. These two sub-sections
are really not relevant so far as we are concerned. Sub-section (3) deals
with a situation where a person has not commenced construction of the
building within one year of the sanction. In that event, the applicant
must apply for a fresh sanction. Sub-section (4) stipulates that a person
intending to make a construction shall notify the proposed date of
commencement of construction.
20. As far as the present case is concerned, the admitted position is
that the Respondent did not begin the construction [sub-section (3)] nor
did the Respondent give any notice for commencement of construction
at any time [sub-section (4)] after the conditional sanction granted on
23rd May, 2000. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the Respondent
had been sanctioned the building plans, the effect thereof got nullified
with the passage of time because the Respondent neither gave any notice
of commencement of construction nor commenced the construction
within the time prescribed. The Respondent cannot, therefore, claim
any benefit of the conditional sanction.
21. That apart, the more important question required to be
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 16 of 23
answered is whether the Respondent was in fact sanctioned the building
plans on 23rd May, 2000 as claimed and what is the applicable law. In
our opinion, the Respondent was only accorded conditional approval to
the building plans. This cannot be equated with the grant of a sanction.
The conditions imposed on the Respondent were to obtain a No
Objection Certificate from the Additional District Magistrate (Land
Acquisition) and to deposit the levy in accordance with the floor area
ratio. Until the conditions were met, it cannot be said that the
conditional approval fructified into a sanction.
22. That apart, the building plans were not in conformity with the
building bye-laws. It is true that the Master Plan for Delhi was amended
on 23rd July, 1998 but no corresponding change was made in the
building bye-laws. Therefore, even if the building plans submitted by
the Respondent conformed to the Master Plan for Delhi, yet they also
needed to be in accord with the building bye-laws – which they were
not. It is nobody’s case that the amendment in the Master Plan for Delhi
as per paragraph 4 of the annexure to the notification dated 23 rd July,
1998 was incorporated in the building bye-laws. In the absence of any
incorporation, the Respondent cannot seek to take advantage of the
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 17 of 23
relaxed norms mentioned in paragraph 4 of the annexure to the
notification dated 23rd July, 1998. Therefore, the first submission made
on behalf of the Corporation must be accepted and it must be held that
even the conditional sanction given on 23 rd May, 2000 to the building
plans submitted by the Respondent was erroneous because that
conditional sanction was based on the relaxed norms given in paragraph
4 of the annexure to the notification dated 23 rd July, 1998 but those
relaxed norms were not incorporated in the relevant building bye-laws.
23. Even if it is deemed that the building bye-laws were suitably
amended on the amendment of the Master Plan for Delhi, the legal
position would not change to the advantage of the Respondent. The
reason for this is that before the No Objection Certificate could be
obtained, the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment (Delhi
Division) issued the notifications S.O. 557(E) and S.O. 558(E) both
dated 7th June, 2000 and the letter dated 8 th June, 2000 suspending the
final sanction of the building plans, except in accordance with the norms
that existed prior to 23rd July, 1998. There is no challenge raised by the
Respondent to notification S.O. 557(E) and S.O. 558(E) both dated 7th
June, 2000 or to the letter dated 8th June, 2000. In view of the following
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 18 of 23
decisions of the Supreme Court, it must be held that no right had either
accrued or vested in the Respondent to have the plans submitted by it
approved in accordance with the increased coverage and height as they
existed prior to 7th June, 2000. In fact, no right had at all accrued to the
Respondent to have the building plans sanctioned in its favour in
accordance with the 23rd July, 1998 notification, particularly after 7th
June, 2000. At best, it can be argued that the only right that accrued or
even vested in the Respondent was for consideration of its building
plans in accordance with the extant building bye-laws. In other words,
the application submitted by the Respondent could be sanctioned only in
accordance with the building bye-laws as they stood on the date of
consideration and not otherwise. That consideration took place only
after 19th June, 2000 that is after the conditions imposed on 23 rd May,
2000 were met by the Respondent. However, in the meanwhile, the two
notifications dated 7th June, 2000 and the letter dated 8 th June, 2000
were issued.
24. In State of West Bengal v. Terra Firma Investment & Trading
Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 125, the Supreme Court quoted with approval
the following passage from Usman Gani J. Khatri v. Cantonment
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 19 of 23
Board, (1992) 3 SCC 455 with regard to the legal right in respect of
sanctioned plans. The passage is apposite to the facts of this case and
reads as follows:
“In any case the High Court is right in taking the
view that the building plans can only be
sanctioned according to the building regulations
prevailing at the time of sanctioning of such
building plans. At present the statutory bye-laws
published on 30.4.1988 are in force and the fresh
building plans to be submitted by the petitioners, if
any, shall now be governed by these bye-laws and
not by any other bye-laws or schemes which are
no longer in force now. If we consider a reverse
case where building regulations are amended more
favourably to the builders before sanctioning of
building plans already submitted, the builders
would certainly claim and get the advantage of the
regulations amended to their benefit.”
25. Relying upon Usman Gani J. Khatri, the Supreme Court held
in New Delhi Municipal Council and others v. Tanvi Trading and
Credit Private Limited and others, (2008) 8 SCC 765 as follows (in
paragraph 39 of the Report): –
“It is well settled that the law for approval of the
building plan would be the date on which the
approval is granted and not the date on which the
plans are submitted.”
26. The same view was expressed by the Supreme Court in
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 20 of 23
Howrah Municipal Corporation and others v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd.
and others, (2004) 1 SCC 663.
27. Similarly in Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Shimla
v. Prem Lata Sood and others, (2007) 11 SCC 40, the Supreme Court
held in paragraph 36 of the judgment as follows:
“36. It is now well settled that where a statute
provides for a right, but enforcement thereof is in
several stages, unless and until the conditions
precedent laid down therein are satisfied, no right
can be said to have been vested in the person
concerned. The law operating in this behalf, in
our opinion is no longer res integra.”
28. Reference may also be made to the decision in Union of India
v. Indian Charge Chrome, (1999) 7 SCC 314. It is said in paragraph 39
of the Report as follows:
“39. In Union of India v. Indian Charge Chrome,
(1999) 7 SCC 314 yet again this Court
emphasised: (SCC p. 327, para 17)“17. …The application has to be decided in
accordance with the law applicable on the date on
which the authority granting the registration is
called upon to apply its mind to the prayer for
registration.”
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 21 of 23
Conclusion:
29. On the basis of the above facts and the decisions referred to, it
is quite clear to us that
(a) The building bye-laws were not amended to be in conformity
with the Master Plan for Delhi as amended on 23rd July, 1998.
(b) Even if the building bye-laws were deemed to be amended,
their operation was suspended on 7 th June, 2000 by virtue of the two
notifications issued by the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment
and the letter dated 8th June, 2000.
(c) In any event, the building plans of the Respondent were
conditionally sanctioned on 23rd May, 2000.
(d) Though the Respondent met the conditions for release of the
building plans on 19th June, 2000 they could not be released in view of
the two notifications dated 7th June, 2000 and the letter dated 8 th June,
2000.
(e) The law applicable on the date of sanction of the building
plans is important. When the building plans of the Respondent were
considered on 19th June, 2000 or thereafter, the relaxed norms for farm
houses were no longer applicable (assuming they were deemed to be
applicable). Consequently, the Corporation had no option but to reject
the building plans of the Respondent.
(f) No right had accrued to the Respondent to proceed on the
basis of the conditional sanction granted to the building plans submitted.
In the absence of any unconditional sanction of building plans, the
question of granting permission to the Respondent to make the
construction did not arise and, indeed, even the Respondent did not ask
for any such permission in terms of Section 337 of the DMC Act.
(g) The Corporation was right in law in asking the Respondent to
submit fresh building plans in accordance with the extant building bye-
laws.
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 22 of 23
30. Under the circumstances, we are not in agreement with the
learned Single Judge and we hold that the Respondent had only a
conditional sanction for its building plans on 23rd May, 2000. The
conditions were met by the Respondent only on 19 th June, 2000 that is,
after a halt on the application of the amended norms and therefore no
right vested in the Respondent to have its building plans sanctioned on
the presumption that the notification S.O. 557(E) and S.O. 558(E) both
dated 7th June, 2000 did not apply. The Corporation was right in
requiring the Respondent to submit fresh building plans in terms of their
letters dated 3rd July, 2000 and 18th October, 2000 read with the
notifications dated 7th June, 2000 and the letter dated 8th June, 2000.
31. The appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed. No
costs.
(MADAN B. LOKUR)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MAY 05, 2010 (MUKTA GUPTA)
dk/ncg JUDGE
LPA No. 268/2003 Page 23 of 23
