S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.) This application is directed against an order dated 10-3-1995 passed by Adviser, P.P.I., C.M.D.A., as contained in Annexure 'G' to the writ petition, whereby and where under the petitioners' application for development permission was rejected. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioners filed an application for sanction of a building plan as also permission for development of the plot of land in terms of Section 46, of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act 1979 on 27th August 1993. Although the respondents were bound to pass an appropriate order on the said application, they did not do so for a long time. The petitioners filed a writ application in this Court being C.O. 21 (w) of 1995 and by an order dated 6-1-1995 this Court directed as follows : "In terms of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979, a duty is cast upon the respondents to dispose of an application filed for development of any particular plot, I dispose of this application with a direction upon the concerned respondents to dispose of the petitioners' said application within one month from the date of communication of this order, in accordance with law."
(2.) The petitioners thereafter served a notice dated 20th February 1995, on the learned advocate for the respondents. However, as no order was passed by the respondents despite the order of this Court, the petitioners filed an application for initiation of a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioners received a notice being letter dated 13-3-1995 on 24-3-1995 whereby and where under the petitioners' application was rejected by the respondents. However, the respondents took advice from the Law Department and in view of the order passed by this Court they revived the proceeding, whereupon the impugned order has been passed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the respondents ought to have disposed of the petitioners' application at an early date and rejection of the said application on the basis of the amended Rules must be held to be illegal. The learned counsel in this connection has submitted that pursuant to several order passed by this Court which are contained in annexure 'I' series, the respondents have already granted permission in terms of section 46(2), of the aforementioned Act. It was, therefore submitted that the petitioners cannot be discriminated against. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that as the petitioners' application has already been rejected the remedy of the petitioners is to file a plan in terms of the provision of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder. According to the learned counsel, the application of the petitioners was required to be decided on the basis of law which was prevailing at the time of grant of sanction and not at the time of filing of the said application. The learned counsel in support of his aforementioned submission relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India in Usman Gani J. Khatri of Bombay v. Cantonment Board, reported in 1992, Vol. 3, Supreme Court Cases 455 . There cannot be any doubt that the conduct of the respondents in not passing an appropriate order on the petitioners' application within a reasonable time must be condemned. The respondents are statutory authorities. They are, thus, obliged to take a decision on application filed by the applicants in terms of Section 46(2) of the aforementioned Act within a reasonable time. However, there cannot also be any doubt that as and when such application comes up for consideration before the concerned authority, the same has to be disposed of in terms of the rules prevailing at the time of grant of sanction and not the rules which were prevailing at the time of filing of this application. In Usman Gani J. Khatri's case (supra) the Supreme Court of India laid down the law in following terms : "At present the statutory bye-laws published on April 30, 1988 are in force and the fresh building plans to be submitted by the petitioners, if any shall not be governed by these bye-laws and not by any other bye-laws or schemes which are no longer in force now. If we consider a reverse case where building regulations are amended more favourably to the builders before sanctioning of building plans already submitted, the builders would certainly claim and get the advantage of the regulations amended to their benefit." The Supreme Court of India in the aforementioned case directed : "None of the petitioners has submitted fresh building plans according to the scheme of building restrictions in force at the relevant time and no sanction was accorded in favour of any of the petitioners to the building plans submitted originally. In case petitioners shall submit fresh building plans now the same would be governed by the new bye-laws which have already come into force on April 30, 1988. The schemes of building restrictions made by GOC-ln-Chief dated December 24, 1982 and March 26,1984 and amended bye-laws in 1988 putting restrictions and reducing the height and floor space index in respect of multistoreyed buildings have been made in larger public interest and for the benefit of the entire population of the city of Pune. No argument challenging the validity of such schemes or bye-laws has been addressed before us. The slogan of the builders and land owners of utilising the maximum area for construction of high-rise buildings for fulfilling the need of houses in big urban cities should always be subservient to the building restrictions and regulations made in the larger interest of the whole inhabitants of Pune and keeping in view the influx of population, environment hazards, sanitation, provision for supply of water, electricity and other amenities."
(3.) It is, however, true as has been pointed out by Mr. Dutta that this Court has passed several orders directing the respondents to consider such application in accordance with law prevailing at the time of submission of the building plan.;