K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has challenged the Notice No. LPEAE/3419/78-79 dated 6 8-1979 issed by respondent No. 2 (Exhibit C ). ( 2 ) AMONG others the petitioner is the owner of site bearing No. 67-A1 situated at Queens Road, Bangalore City. Some time in 1971 the petitioner applied to respondent No. 1 for a licence to construct a residential building on the said site. In accordance with the provisions of the city of Bangalore Municipal Corporation act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1949 Act'), which was then in force, and the building bye-laws framed thereunder, espondent No. 1 granted a licence to the petitioner to construct a residential building on the said site. Sometime in 1971/ 1972, the petitioner completed the construction of the building in conformity with the licence granted to him by respondent No. 1. ( 3 ) ON 9 -10-1978, the petitioner applied to the Commissioner of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore (hereinafter leferred to as 'the Commissioner') for a licence to con truct a first floor on the existing building of site No. 67-A1. On an examination of the said application made by the petitioner, the Assistant engineer, Ulsoor Range, who had been delegated with the powers to sanction building licences under S. 66 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1976 Act') that came into force on 1-6 -1977 repealing the 1949 Act, granted a building licence to the petitioner on 19-12 -1978 to construct the first floor. In pursuance of the said license, the petitioner started the construction of the first floor and had made considerable progress in the construction of the building. At that stage some neighbouring owners of the building represented to the Commissioner that the licence granted by the Assistant Engineer violated the building licence bye-laws of the Corporation and the same should, therefore, be cancelled. On those represecntations, the Commissioner inspected the building and made an order on 29-7-1979 to revoke the licence granted by the Assistant Engineer. In pursuance of that order, respondent No. 2 has issued the impugned notice to the petitioner. On those represecntations, the Commissioner inspected the building and made an order on 29-7-1979 to revoke the licence granted by the Assistant Engineer. In pursuance of that order, respondent No. 2 has issued the impugned notice to the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has asserted that the licence issued by the Assistant Engineer who was empowered to issue the same, cannot be revoked by the Commissioner or by any other authority of the Corporation. ( 5 ) IN their return, the respondents do not deny that the Assistant Engineer, ulsoor Range who was authorised to issue the licence has issued a licence to petitioner. But the respondents have urged that the licence issued by the Assistant Engineer, was in contravention of the building bye-laws and its revocation ordered by the Commissioner was legal and valid. ( 6 ) SRI S. K. Venkataranga lyengar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a building licence granted by the competent authority cannot be revoked by that authority or by any other authority of the Corporation. In support of his contention, Sri Venktaranga lyengar strongly relied on a Division Bench ruling of this Court in D. Achaiah Setty v. City of Bangalore Muncipal Corporation AIR 1972 Mys 203 = (1972)1 Mys LJ 186. ( 7 ) SRI A. Jagannatha Shetty, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned action of the respondents. He urged that the principles enunciated by this Court in Achaiah Setty's case dealing with the provisions of the 1949 Act had no application. He maintained that subsection (3) of S 443 of the 1976 Act empopowered the Commissioner to revoke the licence granted by the Assistant engineer. ( 8 ) GRANT of building licences and construction of buildings thereto in the City of Bangalore is regulated by the building bye-laws framed by the Corporation with the approval of the State Government under the 1949 and 1976 Acts. Chapter 15 the 1976 Act, dealing with the regulation of buildings or the building bye-laws under which a licence has been issued to the petitioner, does not empower the authority that had issued the licence or the commissioner to revoke or cancel a building licence granted by the competent authority. S 443 of the the 1976 Act. occurs under the Chapter 21 viz. , 'procedure and Miscellaneous'. S 443 of the the 1976 Act. occurs under the Chapter 21 viz. , 'procedure and Miscellaneous'. Sub-section (3) does not in terms confer the power of refusal, suspension, cancellation or modification of a licence or permission granted in accordance with any of the provisions of the 1976 Act and any of the bye 'laws made by the Corporation. On the other hand, sub-section (3) of S 443 of the 1976 Act only requires the Commissioner or any other Municipal authority to make an order in writing and give reasons in support of his order. In my view, sub-section (3) of S. 443, cannot be read as conferring an independent power of refusal, suspension, cancellation or modification of a licerce if the same is not conferred by the other appropriate provisions that regulate the grant of building licences under that Act. I am, therefore, of the opinion that sub-section (3) of S 443 of the 1976 Act does not assist the respondents to sustain their action. ( 9 ) SUB-SECTION (4) of S. 443 of 1976 act is in pari materia with S 385 (4) of the 1949 Act. In Achaiah Settv's case, this Court on an examination of the provisions of the 1949 Act, which are in pari materia or analogous with the provisions of the 1976 Act, has ruled that a building licence once granted cannot be revoked by that authority or any other authority under that Act. In my opinion, the ratio in Achaiah Shetty's case, though the same was rendered dealing with the provisions of the 1949 Act is equally applicable in determining the power of the Commissioner to revoke the licence granted by the assistant Engineer under the 1976 Act. In this view, I hold that the order made by the Commissioner to revoke the licence and the consequent impugned notice issued by respondent No. 2 are without jurisdiction and power and are, therefore, liable to be quashed. In this view, I do not consider it necessary to examine whether the facts and circumstances justified the cancellation of the licence. ( 10 ) IN the result, I quash the order of the Commissioner revoking the licence granted to the petitioner and the impugned notice issued thereto by respondent no. 2. ( 11 ) RULE issued is made absolute. In this view, I do not consider it necessary to examine whether the facts and circumstances justified the cancellation of the licence. ( 10 ) IN the result, I quash the order of the Commissioner revoking the licence granted to the petitioner and the impugned notice issued thereto by respondent no. 2. ( 11 ) RULE issued is made absolute. ( 12 ) IN the circumstances of the case, i direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .