Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. - (1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact their application for sanction to erect buildings on the lands particulars whereof have been given in the writ petition has not been considered by the Howrah Municipal Corporation.
(2.) Mr. D.P. Mukherjee, counsel for Howrah Municipal Corporation, says that decision in the application could not be given because of a letter of the Chief Executive Officer of Howrah Improvement Trust dated June 7th, 2007 whereby that authority informed the authorities concerned that there was a proposal for acquisition of the lands in question. Mr Adhikari, counsel for Howrah Improvement Trust, has said that though till date no notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been published, as a matter of fact, the improvement trust has prepared a scheme proposing acquisition of the lands in question. He is, however, not in a position to produce the scheme. Mr Sakti Nath Mukherjee, counsel for the petitioners, submits that in view of the provisions of section 175 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the commissioner of the corporation was not authorised to withhold sanction to the erection of the buildings for a period exceeding the period specifically mentioned in the section. Mr D.P. Mukherjee, on the other hand, has said that in view of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1991, r.13, the sanction can be withheld for a period not exceeding three years, if the proposed site-of the building or work is likely to the affected by any scheme of acquisition of land for any public purpose. According to Mr Sakti Nath Mukherjee the provisions of Rule 13 providing for a power to withhold sanction for a longer period than the one mentioned in section 175 is patently ultra vires the provisions of Section 175. He, however, says that it is not necessary to decide the question in the present case. What he says is that simply on the basis of some letter written by the authority of Howrah Improvement Trust, the commissioner of the corporation cannot withhold sanction wanted by the petitioners for erecting buildings on the basis of the plan they submitted. His argument is that the commissioner was under a statutory obligation to give decision in the application. To this both Mr. D.P. Mukherjee and Mr Adhikari have said that decision should be given in the application submitted by the petitioners. Mr. Adhikari has said that an opportunity should be given to Howrah Improvement Trust to participate in the proceedings before the commissioner who is the authority to give appropriate decision in the petitioners' application. This being position, I think it will be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition giving necessary directions to the commissioner.
(3.) For these reasons, I dispose of the writ petition ordering that after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the Howrah Improvement Trust, and any other person or authority who may be affected by the decision to be given in the application, and after examining all materials produced by the parties in support of their respective cases, and within six weeks from the date of communication of this order, the commissioner of Howrah Municipal Corporation shall give an appropriate reasoned decision, in accordance with law, in the petitioners' application whereby they sought sanction to erect buildings on the lands in question according to the plan they submitted. The reasoned decision shall be communicated to all concerned at once. There shall be no order for costs. Copy of this order duly countersigned by A.R.(C) or A.C.O. shall be supplied to advocates for the parties on the usual undertakings. Urgent certified xerox copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the parties within three days from the date of receipt of the file by the section concerned. . ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...;