HOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs. BAIDYANANDA MAHATO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had submitted a plan for sanction for the purpose of construction of six storeyed building to the Howrah Municipal Corporation on 25th May, 1984. On 8th June, 1984, a resolution was taken by the Building Committee that the sanction be recommended on payment of sanction fee of Rs. 4,500/- subject to removal of certain objections. This was communicated to the petitioner by a letter dated 16th August, 1984 addressed by the Howrah Municipal Corporation. It is alleged by Mr. Banerjee that the defects were removed on 22nd August, 1987. On perusal of the notesheet, it appears that after this recommendation was made for removal of the defects on 8th June, 1984 the next note is for calculation of the sanction fee at the present rate endorsed on 29th July, 1987. Accordingly the enhanced sanction fee calculated and forwarded for further order to the Commissioner on 3rd August, 1987. The Commissioner enquired whether the condition for sanction has been fulfilled by the party. After this note, it appears from the record that the defects were removed. Mr. Mukherjee submits that this is the whole record, which is produced before the Court. He has also submitted that attempt was made to trace out the corrected plan but that was not available on record. We had also browsed through the record and the file produced before us, but we are unable to find out any corrected plan on record. Whereas there is another note dated 22nd August, 1987, where it has been noted that the party had fulfilled the conditions of sanction laid down in the meeting and the party may now be asked to deposit the sanction fee at the present rate within 30 days for sanction of the plan. It appears that there was a note to discuss the matter on 5th October, 1987. There is another note that the matter was discussed. This particular record was torn, we are unable to read the note dated 28th August, 1987. The only part that we could read is 'be approved', which appears to have been signed by the same person who had signed the note on 8th August, 1987 which seems to be that of the Commissioner. 1.1. It appears that after this episode the writ petitioner respondent wrote a letter on 10th June, 1989 seeking permission to deposit the sanction fee on the ground that the writ petition had left for his native place and therefore, he could not deposit the sanction fee. This letter is on record. It appears from the said letter that the writ petitioners were the owners of the property for which they had submitted a plan for six storeyed building upon which this plan was sanctioned with direction to deposit sanction fee. That the petitioners had left for their native village outside Bengal for a long period of time due to some bona fide reasons as such they could not deposit the sanction fees towards plan and could not obtain the plan sanctioned from the Municipality. They want to execute the construction work according to the sanctioned plan on payment of usual charges towards plan as assessed at the present rate. Therefore, he prayed that he may be allowed to deposit the sanction fee. This letter was placed before the Commissioner on 12th June, 1989. On 19th June, 1989 there was a note by the Commissioner as to whether the plan was sanctioned as per Building Rules. By a note dated 17th July, 1989, it was pointed out that the case was placed before the Building Committee so that the proposal may be sanctioned according to C. M. Act, which was continued when the original meeting was held. On 18th July, 1989, it was decided by the authority that it was a proposal for six storeyed building and since the sanction fee was not deposited pursuant to the sanction order dated 8th June, 1984, the same cannot be acted upon after expiry of more than 5 (five) years and the party may submit a fresh plan in accordance with the Building Rules. This appears to have been signed by the Mayor. Accordingly, the petitioner was informed on 7th September, 1989 that since the sanction fee was not deposited, therefore, the plan was cancelled. 1.2. Against this order on 11th March, 1990, the writ petition being C. O. No. 14149(W) of 1989 was moved. However, no interim order was granted, on 7th September, 1990 when the matter came up again, an order was passed permitting the petitioner to deposit the sanction fee at the enhanced rate within a fortnight and upon acceptance of such amount the Municipality was to proceed in accordance with law. It is contended by Mr. Banerjee appearing for the respondents that this amount was deposited through a demand draft. But Mr. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the Howrah Municipal Corporation/appellant submits that no deposit was ever made. From the record, it appears that the issuing bank was enquired about whether the cheque was encashed, by a letter dated 7th February, 1996 addressed by the writ petitioners. This was replied to in the negative by the bank. A xerox copy of this letter dated 19th February, 1996 addressed to the writ petitioner/respondent by the bank pursuant to its letter dated 7th February, 1996, is already on record of the Howrah Municipal Corporation. Much has been said about the deposit and non-deposit of this demand draft. But we are not on this question since this was an action pendente lite which would depend on the final outcome of the matter. The question:

(2.) Now the question, in the facts and circumstances as disclosed above, is whether the Howrah Municipal Corporation is obliged to sanction the plan and permit the writ petitioners to construct six storeyed building in accordance with the provisions of the Howrah Municipal Act as was applicable to the case of sanction prior to the coming into force of the new Act. Mr. Banerjee contends that there was no communication to his client that the writ petitioner was required to deposit the sanction fee within 30 days. According to him, until this is communicated, the writ petitioner is entitled to deposit the amount and carry on construction on the basis of the plan already sanctioned on 8th June, 1984 as corrected on 22nd August, 1987 in compliance of the sanction order. However, this is being opposite by Mr. Mukherjee. The Building Rules : Its application :

(3.) In order to appreciate the situation, we may refer to the Building Rules applicable in 1984 or prior to the new Act, which came into force with effect from 18th December, 1989. Admittedly, this was governed by the Howrah Municipal (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1933 by which the provisions of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 was adopted and extended to the Municipality of Howrah. This adoption continued even with the enactment of Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 by reason of section 614 thereof and also with the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 by reason of section 633 thereof. The Howrah Municipal Act, 1965 also did not affect these provisions. Therefore, it is the same Building Rules, which became applicable by reason of section 633 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 would be applicable in this case as on 8th June, 1984. 3.1. The Building Rules provides in Part 7, the procedure for sanction of a new building. Various procedures have been mentioned therein, we need not go into those. Rule 57 requires sanction of a plan or refusal thereof, which runs as follows: