N D M C Vs. TANVI TRADING AND CREDIT PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted in both the special leave petitions.

(2.) THESE appeals are directed against common judgment dated May 19, 2004 rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C. W. P. No. 4154 of 2000, whereby it is held that the order rejecting building plans submitted by the respondents is illegal as well as without jurisdiction and declared that the building plans submitted by the respondents, are deemed to have been sanctioned under section 241 (2) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (for short "ndnc Act" ). Further, the New Delhi Municipal council is directed to return the building plans submitted by the respondents with an endorsement "sanctioned" within the time specified in the order.

(3.) THE Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 purchased plot No. 47, amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi by a registered sale deed on october 28, 1994, in execution application which was filed pursuant to a decree passed in Suit No. 307 of 1993. The said plot was mutated in the name of Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 on march 22, 1999. On 20. 4. 1998, the respondents approached the New Delhi Municipal Council ( "the NDMC" for short) to sanction the building plans for construction of two and a half storey building having 15 dwelling units. The NDMC rejected the plans by an order dated 17. 6. 1998 on several grounds including the ground that the plans were in breach of the LBZ guidelines. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed an appeal under Section 254 of the NDMC Act, 1994, before the appellate Tribunal, MCD, New Delhi. The Appellate Tribunal by order dated 23. 9. 1999 remanded the case to the NDMC holding that the guidelines issued in the year 1988 were interim in nature. The respondents were of the opinion that the matter should not have been remanded to the NDMC and, therefore, challenged the order of remand by filing an appeal under Section 256 of NDMC Act, 1994 before the Lieutenant governor of New Delhi. The Lieutenant Governor, New Delhi rejected the appeal filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and by an order dated 1. 12. 1999 upheld the order of remand of the case to the Chairman, NDMC by observing that as per the clear guidelines of the Ministry of Urban Development dated february 8, 1988, the building plans of the respondents could not have been sanctioned. Though pursuant to remand order, the respondents appeared before the Chairperson NDMC, they did not resubmit the building plans as required by the remand order and preferred Writ Petition NO. 4145 of 2000 before the high Court of Delhi from which the present appeals arise. During the pendency of the petitions, the High Court by its order dated July 31, 2000 directed the Chairman, NDMC to consider the question of grant of sanction of the plans originally submitted. The Chairman, NDMC, by his order dated November 13, 2000, rejected the building plans submitted by Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 by holding that guidelines issued in the years 1988, 1995, 1996 and 1997 were not complied with. It was held by the Chairman that the guidelines issued in the year 1988 were not interim in the nature as observed by the Appellate Tribunal but were final and mandatory. The respondents filed an application in pending petition stating that the matter was also considered by the Ministry of Urban Development and, therefore, the High court by order dated March 21, 2003 issued notice to the ministry of Urban Development, which was not originally a party to the writ petition. The Ministry of Urban Development filed its affidavit before the High Court stating that the idea behind the maintenance of LBZ was to have a low density of development and that the 1988 guidelines were in operation. It was further pointed out that vide letter date May 1, 2003 the Ministry had referred the matter to the Prime Minister's office for relaxation of LBZ guidelines but PMO had informed the Ministry that the relaxation of LBZ guidelines for construction of building had not been approved. The High court after considering the materials placed before it has rendered the impugned judgment giving rise to the above numbered appeals.