2003 (12) TMI 634 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of sanction for construction of three additional floors to the multi-storeyed complex which is already constructed up to four floors belonging to respondent - ' vested right' or 'settled expectation' - HELD THAT - We do not find that there was any deliberate delay on the part of the Corporation. We have found that the stand of the Corporation, on the basis of Building Rules, cannot be held to be erroneous that for seeking three additional floors, the company was required to file fresh application for sanction with necessary particulars, documents, plans and enclosures. The company complied with the necessary requirements but thereafter, the Building Rules were amended and restrictions have been imposed on height of buildings on the GT Road. It cannot, therefore, be held that the action of the Corporation is malicious. The Building Rules were amended by the State and the Corporation can have no bona fide or mala fide hand in it. After the amended Building Rules were notified, the Corporation on relevant ground of limited resources for civic amenities in a congested city like Howrah, with the approval of Mayor-in-Council, could legally impose legitimate restrictions on the height of buildings, on specified wards, roads and localities. It is to be noted from the relevant resolution of the Corporation that restrictions with regard to the height of buildings are not imposed only on GT Road but there are several specified wards and areas in which such restrictions are applied. This Court cannot accept that such a legislative change and consequent resolution came to be passed and got approved only to frustrate the pending application of the company. The 'vested right' or 'settled expectation' has been nullified not only by the Corporation but also by the State by amending the Building Rules. Besides this, such a 'settled expectation' or so-called 'vested right' cannot be countenanced against public interest and convenience which are sought to be served by amendment of the Building Rules and the resolution of the Corporation issued thereupon. In the matter of sanction of buildings for construction and restricting their height, the paramount consideration is public interest and convenience and not the interest of a particular person or a party. The sanction now directed to be granted by the High Court for construction of additional floors in favour of respondent is clearly in violation of the amended Building Rules and the Resolution of the Corporation which restrict heights of buildings on GT Road. This Court in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution cannot support the impugned order of the High Court of making an exception in favour of the respondent company by issuing directions for grant of sanction for construction of building with height in violation of the amended Building Rules and the resolution of the Corporation passed consequent thereupon. Thus, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge was right in rejecting the prayer of the respondent company in public interest and the Division Bench of the High Court committed an error in directing grant of sanction for further construction above four floors to the respondent company in clear violation of the existing building rules and the resolution of the Corporation. In the result, the appeal preferred by the Corporation succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the Division bench of the High Court dated 5.9.1997 is hereby quashed and that of the learned Single judge restored. In the circumstance, however, we shall direct the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Howrah Municipal Corporation (HMC) was justified in refusing the sanction for construction of three additional floors based on amended Building Rules.
2. Whether a vested right was created in favor of the respondent company due to the High Court's time-bound orders for sanction consideration.

Summary:

1. Justification of Refusal Based on Amended Building Rules:
The Howrah Municipal Corporation (HMC) challenged the Division Bench judgment which directed the grant of sanction for construction of three additional floors to the respondent's multi-storeyed complex. The Single Judge had denied the sanction based on the amended Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules 1991, which prohibited multi-storeyed construction above one plus two floors on G.T. Road, Howrah. The Division Bench, however, held that the sanction should be granted as the application was made before the amendment and the delay in sanction was due to the Corporation's inaction.

2. Creation of Vested Right Due to High Court Orders:
The respondent company first applied for sanction on 6.7.1992. Due to the Corporation's delay, the company approached the High Court, which directed the Corporation to decide the application within a specified period. The company completed construction up to the 4th floor and sought further sanction for three additional floors. The Corporation delayed the sanction, and during this period, the Building Rules were amended, restricting the height of buildings on G.T. Road. The Corporation refused the sanction based on these amendments.

The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's orders created a vested right for the respondent to obtain sanction based on the unamended rules. It was held that no vested right was created merely by the submission of an application for sanction. The statutory provisions and Building Rules intended to regulate construction activities in public interest and convenience. The Court emphasized that the paramount consideration is public interest, and no vested right can be claimed against statutory provisions.

The Court referred to previous decisions, including Usman Gani J. Khatri of Bombay vs. Cantonment Board and State of West Bengal vs. Terra Firma Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd., which held that building plans must be sanctioned according to the regulations prevailing at the time of sanction, not at the time of application.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Division Bench erred in directing the grant of sanction in violation of the amended Building Rules and the resolution of the Corporation. The appeal by the Corporation was allowed, restoring the Single Judge's order, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.