STATESMAN LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to be action of the respondents, particularly of New Delhi Municipal Committee, in not dealing with and sanctioning the building plans submitted by the petitioner-com- pany

(2.) The petitioner No. l.theStatseman Limited, hereinafter referred to as 'the company' publishes the newspaper "The Statesman" from Calcutta and Delhi. The Company holds I lease in perpetuity of plot No. 18, Bara- khamba Road, New Delhi, where its present offices and press premises are located since 1930. In May 1980 the Company submitted plans to NDMC for development of its property in line with buildings constructed by other major newspapers. The Land & Development Office under the Ministry of Urban Development, respondent No. I, levied an additional premium of Rs. 63,40,918.00 for a total construction of 1.62,000 sq. ft. of FAR area. The Company accepted the additional levy and with the approval of the Land & Development Office made the entire payment in instalments with interest. The last instalment was paid on July 31, 1985.

(3.) The plans submitted to NDMC were approved on August 29, 1980 and the approval was to be valid for a period of two years. However, the fact of the approval having been accorded w not communicated to the petitioner Company till May 4, 1982. Consequently the plans had to be submitted for revalidation. On May 18, 1984 the plans were revalidated for a further period of one year, but even then revalidation was not communicat- ed until a few weeks before the expiry period. Meanwhile in January 1985 an unofficial ban was imposed on high rise buildings in the areas under Delhi Development Authority and Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The ban was however, formalised in October 1985 by issue of a notification for an indeterminate period. Subsequently the ban for the Cannaught Place area was removed by a notification dated July 18, 1986 issued by the Minis- try of Urban Development. The proposed building of the petitioner Company ws covered by the said notification. Since then the efforts were made by the petitioner Company to have the plans sanctioned from the NDMC. Pending the sanction of the plans because of the changing requirements of the modern technology the Company submitted the revised plans. The revised plans were submitted on the suggestion of the Chief Architect of the NDMC. Under the provisions of the Delhi Urban Art Commission Act, 1973, the NDMC was obliged to get approval from the Urban Art Commission constituted under the said Act. Consequently the plans were sent for approval somewhere in December 1986. On February 18, 1987, the Chief Architect of NDMC informed the petitioner Company that the plans had been rejected under section 193(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The intimation gave 28 reasons for rejection of the plans. However, it is not necessary to deal with those 28 reasons since in my opinion most of them were uncalled for and the objections stood waved later on. Inspite of the fact that the stand of the petitioner Company was that in case the plans were not rejected within a period of 60 days from the date of their submission they would be deemed to have been sanctioned, the petitioner Company in May 1987 re-submitted the plans after removing the various objections raised by the NDMC. The matter, however lingered on and the plans were not sanctioned. The objections were raised by Delhi Urban Art Commission as also by other Authorities.