- (1.) The New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC) seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from the order dated 28-4-989 of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petn. 3090 of 1987. In the writ petition, Statesman Ltd., and its Managing Director, Respondents 1 and 2 respectively herein, sought to impugn the decision of the NDMC dated 18-2-1987, declining to sanction the Revised-plans for the construction of "Statesman-House" - a high-rise building on plot No. 148, Barakhamba Road New Delhi, of which the first respondent is the lessee. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the NDMC to convey its formal sanction of the building-plans on or before the 5th day of May, 1989. The NDMC assails the decision of the High Court on grounds, principally, that the plans for the multi-storeyed high-rise building, as proposed by Statesman Ltd., did not, in the matter of the fire-safety requirements, accord with the mandatory requirements of the Statutory Building Bye-laws promulgated under the Punjab Municipal Act 1911, in relation to the Union territory of Delhi and that the proposed-building did not also provide for a "Podium/ pedestrian walk-way" made mandatory by the Zonal Development Plan for Zone D-1 (viz., Connaught Place Area) approved by the Central Government on 30th April, 1966 in No. 21023(7)/66 UD under S. 9(2) of the Delhi Development Act 1957. We have heard Sri Kapil, Sibal learned Senior Advocate for the NDMC and Sri Nariman and Sri Soli J. Sorabjee learned Senior Advocate for the Statesman Ltd. and its Managing Director. Special Leave is granted.
(2.) Respondent No. 1, a publisher of Newspapers, holds a lease in perpetuity from Govt. of the plot No. 148, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. In the year 1980 Respondent No. 1 sought for, and obtained, permission from the Land Development Officer, to errect a high-rise building of an area of 1,62,000 square feet and paid Rs. 63,40,918 / - betterment levy. On 4-5-1982 it applied for, and on 29-8-1982 obtained, sanction from the NDMC of its building-plans, valid for 2 years. The sanction was revalidated for a further period of two years. In June 1985, however, there was, it would appear, prohibition on high-rise structures. But this prohibition, in relation to Connaught Place area, was lifted on 18-7-1986. On 29-12-1986 Respondent No. 1 submitted Revised plans incorporating therein substantial changes in the plans necessitated, as it was claimed, by the changing requirements of printing technology and the plans as earlier sanctioned did not meet these altered requirements. The new-building, as envisaged by the revised plans, would accommodate the printery of the Respondent 1, its offices and other offices and business accommodation. On 7-1-1987, the appellant forwarded the Revised-plans to the Delhi Urban Art Commission (DUAC) in compliance with the requirements of S. 12 of the Delhi Urban Art Commission Act 1973 which envisages that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every local body shall, before according approval in respect of any "building operations" or "development proposals" refer the same to the DUAC for its scrutiny. S. 12, further provides that the decision of the DUAC in that behalf shall be binding on such local body. The DUAC did not promptly, scrutinise the plans but engaged itself in some correspondence with the NDMC as also with the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, seeking what it referred to as the "requisite clarifications", "clear cut finalised policy" and "guidelines" for it to be able to process the plans.
(3.) However, by communication dated 18-2-1987, the NDMC in exercise of power under Section 193(3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, rejected the plans, assigning 28 reasons for the rejection. On 14-5-1987, the Architect of First-Respondent claiming to have sub-sequently complied with or. clarified the points on which the rejection was based, resubmitted the plans. On 26-5-1987, the Architect wrote to NDMC to reconsider its decision dated 18-2-1987, in the light of the rectifications effected. However, no positive response having emanated from the NDMC. Respondents 1 and 2, on 27-10-1987, filed the writ-petition in the High Court for an appropriate order directing the DUAC and the NDMC to "forthwith deal with the application for grant of sanction". Sometime in March 1988, the Chief Fire Officer, Delhi Fire Services, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), New Delhi, were impleaded to the proceedings. During the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court, the DUAC which had earlier considered the plans to be 'conceptually unsatisfactory' took a decision to approve the plans. So did the Chief Fire Officer who, by his communication dated 9-3-1988, gave clearance to the building-plans in relation to the fire-safety precautions. The High Court considered the objection raised by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) as unrelated -to the bye-laws as applicable to the situation and held that the objection from that source should not interdict the sanction of plans by the NDMC. During the pendency of the proceedings, the High Court required the parties to sort out their differences. On 9-12-1988, the High Court had occasion to say: "....... We have no doubt that the NDMC will grant the final approval without wasting any further time. In case the meeting of the Building Plans Committee of NDMC is not scheduled to be held within two weeks, the NDMC will so arrange that a special meeing is held so that the matter is not delayed any further. Case to be listed before Court for final orders and disposal on February 3, 1989.";