- (1.) THIS rule was issued at the instance of the Commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta, City Architect, corporation of Calcutta and the district Building Surveyer, District-II (P), corporation of Calcutta, and is directed against a judgment and order dated september 24, 1973 passed by the building Tribunal, Corporation of calcutta.
(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of the present rule are as follows : the opposite parties Nos. 5 to 12 who are the owners of premises Nos. 210 and 212, Jamunalal Bazaz Street, Calcutta, filed an application along with copies of a plan on March 21, 1970 for sanction to construct a six-storied build ing at the said premises. The said proposal involved building construction to the extent of 529921 cubic feet. The said application was not pursued as the petitioners insisted upon compliance with rule 5 (A) of Schedule XVI to the calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Rule 5a of Schedule XVI to the Act provides that if a building having an area of 8500 cubic meters is proposed to be constructed within he special parking zone the owner of such building has to provide for parking space within the premises containing such building, a certain area as specified in the said rule. On May 23, 1970 the opposite parties Nos. 5 to 12 submitted a fresh application for construction of a three storied building at the said two premises. Sanction was accorded to the proposed construction on condition that prior to the commencement of work in accordance with the plan the aforesaid two premises would have to be amalgamated. On April 24, 1972, the said opposite parties filed another application with copies of plans for permission to construct 4 more stories on the aforesaid site over the 3 stories for which sanction had been given. On account of certain defects the said application and the plans submitted therewith were not in compliance with rules 50, 51 and 52 of Schedule XVI of the Act, On may 11, 1972 a letter was addressed to the said opposite parties were request ed to remove those defects before the application could be dealt with further. The petitioner No. 3 in the usual course of consideration of the said application for building sanction caused a copy of the said plan to be sent to the Constructional Surveyer and also caused the connected filed to be put up before the Building Inspector concerned for his inspection and report with form 'c' containing the objection, if any, to the said application for sanction as contemplated under rule 54 of Schedule xvi of the Act. The Building Surveyor submitted a report after inspection in which it was pointed out that several shops had been started without sanction from the Corporation of Calcutta. On February 12, 1973 a requisition in form 'c' under Rule 54 of Schedule xvi of the Act was served upon the opposite parties requiring them to furnish certain information, to produce some documents, and to satisfy the commissioner, Corporation of Calcutta with regard to the objection mentioned therein. On March 1, 1973 the opposite parties Nos. 5 to 12 submitted along with a letter 3 sets of plan purported to be in compliance with the said requisition for the proposed construction of 4 more stories. No ground floor plan was however submitted by the opposite parties and the plan submitted by them contained slight modification of the plan which had been submitted by them earlier. By two letters dated July 10, 1973 and July 17, 1973 the opposite parties replied to the requisition made under Rule 54. By a letter dated July 26, 1973 the petitioner No. 3 informed the opposite parties that without compliance with the requisition made under rule 54 the plan case could not be further dealt with. The opposite parties Nos. 5 to 12 treated this letter as a refusal of plan under Rule 55 (1) (b) of schedule XVI of the Act and they filed an appeal before the Building Tribunal, corporation of Calcutta.
(3.) THEREAFTER on the 23rd August, 1973 the opposite parties Nos. 5 to 12 re-submitted fresh plans for permission to construct 7 additional stories over the existing 3 stories. But in this plan the ground floor plan was not submitted. On the 25th August, 1973 the said opposite parties were required to file a complete set of plans. Before this re-submitted plan could be taken up for consideration the appeal was proceeded with and by its judgment and order dated 24th September, 1973 the Building Tribunal allowed the appeal and and ordered as follows : - "ordered that the appeal be allowed on contest and the D. B. S's order that the plan case will not be dealt with unless and until all the requisition of the Building department be completed with, set aside and it be ordered that this application under rule 50 (1) of Schedule XVI of the act be granted on appellants' making necessary change in the proposed plan as submitted by them, for compliance with Rule 3 of schedule XVI of the Act. " Against this judgment and order the present rule has been obtained.;