Vinod Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) A very short point is involved for consideration in this case.
(2.) The petitioners have submitted a building plan for sanction by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The petitioners say that despite the plan having been submitted for sanction as far back as in the year 1993, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation has not granted its approval. The only objection raised in the affidavit-in-opposition, which was also urged at the time of hearing, was that the building plan a submitted by the petitioners suffered from the non compliance with the requirement of keeping open space as prescribed under Rule 58 of the Building Rules, 1990. In fact, it is submitted that the petitioners were informed way back in the year 1995 that since the building does not have a provision for an open space, as was required under Rule 58, the plan could not be sanctioned.
(3.) In the affidavit-in-reply the petitioners have refuted the aforesaid objection taken on behalf of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and have submitted that the requirement relating to open space as contained in Rule 58 was dispensed with and relaxed by the Municipal Commissioner in terms of Rule 58 and that the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition have concealed this factual aspect. In order to resolve this controversy, the respondents were directed to produce the original record for perusal of the Court. I have seen the original record produced by the learnel Advocate for the respondents and found that the file regarding the grant of relaxation from the observance of Rule 58 ; with regard to the provision of open space was submitted to the Municipal Commissioner of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in due course. In fact, the relevant noting starts on 28.12.93 when the City Architect after observing that the height of the existing building in the front was 6.30 Mts. from the ground level and as the buildings on North, West and South and thus adjoining premises are within 14.5 Mts , the requirement under Rule 58 may be relaxed. This recommendation of the City Architect made on 28.12.93 after having been routed through various channels was ultimately put up before the Municipal Commissioner, who vide his order dated 8.3.94 has recorded in the original file observed as under:- "May be relaxed.";