As the building was an old companystruction and required urgent and extensive repairs, on October 16, 1965 the respondents submitted to the appellant plans for its sanction for execution of work companysisting of repairs, additions as well as alterations to the said building.
The material averments, relevant for the present purpose, are that the respondents are the owners of the premises and that the companystruction was old and required repairs but the plans submitted by the respondents did number companyform to bye laws and companytravened s. 336 2 a in respect of land use and s. 340 2 with respect to requisitioning of land by the Delhi Development Authority for their Scheme and that the plans were also affected by road widening.
They also denied that the Delhi Development Authority had any scheme for road widening.
as was clear from the numberice, 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 companysequences if the respondents did number companyply with the numberice.
Appeal by special leave from the order, dated August 11, 1967 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No.
Attempts made by the respondents to satisfy the Commissioner that their application was quite legal and that there was numberviolation 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 Art.
Niren De, Solicitor General, B.P. Maheshwari and R.K. Maheshwari, for the appellant.
It was further stated that the plan submitted by them did number companytravene any of the provisions of sub s. 2 of s. 336 or s. 340 of the Corporation Act.
A companytroversy appears to have been raised by the appellant before the High Court that the application, by the respondents, related also.
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.
The second map viz.
C. Chagla and Urmila Kapoor, for the respondents.
On these grounds.
as per their application of October 16, 1965.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
to certain other municipal door numbers, but as that is number material for the present purpose, we do number refer to the same.
3766 to 3776, situated in the main Chawri Bazar, Delhi.
in possession of the building bearing municipal door Nos.
The Commissioner of the appellant Corporation, by letter, dated February 4, 1966 informed the respondents that their application for execution of companystruction work in respect of house Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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 High Court, dated May 10, 1967 whereby a writ of manda Patent Bench had companyfirmed 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.
The circumstances leading up to the issue of the writ of mandamus against the appellant may be briefly adverted to.
1049 of 1968.
they urged that the order, dated February 4, 1966 passed by the Commissioner refusing to accord sanction was illegal and ultra vires and in companysequence they prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to accord sanction, as asked for by them.
On behalf of the appellant, the Assistant Engineer had filed a companynter affidavit.
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 companymercial.
the Master Plan prepared under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 certain areas, including Chawri Bazar, would be the Central Business District of Delhi and that the proposed user, mentioned by them in the plan sent for sanction was number in companytravention of the Master Plan.
85 of 1967.
incumbent on the Commissioner of the appellant, under s. 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 companytravened any of the provisions, of sub s. 2 of s. 336 or s. 340 of the Corporation Act.
The respondents are the owners and are.
They further referred to a letter, dated April 30, 1966 of the Delhi Development Authority stating that the Zonal Development Plan has number been prepared for the area in question.
In their reply affidavit the respondents companytroverted the averments of the Assistant Engineer that the plans did number companyform to bye laws or the provisions of s. 336 2 or any other law in respect of land use.
the Zonal Map and the Proposed Circulation Pattern of Walled City and it was stated that the area marked A in the Zonal Map refers to the Walled City which is divided into 27 zones.
They stated that according to.
