JUDGMENT H. S. Thakur, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the respondents as contained in Annexure C. Annexure C, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced as under :— "Municipal Corporation, Simla. Office/Officer Order No. 27. Dated 12-7-79. The application of the Manager, Khadi Gramo Udyog dated 18-5-79 regarding construction at Green Field near Skating Rink, Simla alongwith recommendations of the departments were considered. The same is rejected with the following objections. Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Simla. Sr. No. 3353/1800/M/79, dated 12-7-79 The copies of this for Manager, Khadi Gramo-Udyog Bhawan, Simla. Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Simla. 1. Under sections 15 and 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act, there is ban on building construction. In that context no objection certificate has not been obtained from the Town planning. Be brought, 2. The place where construction is demanded is banned by M. C, Simla. 3. The challan No. 86/8 of the Forest Department of the Corporation dated 25-4-79 be settled." 2. Briefly the facts relevant to the case are that the petitioner applied for grant of sanction to raise construction on the vacant plot of land attached to the Green Field building in Simla. The sanction was not given by the respondents who rejected the plan with the objections that the area fell within the sensitive area and that the petitioner had also not obtained a no objection certificate from the Town and Country Planner as envisaged under sections 15 and 16 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, preferred an appeal under section 240 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968 before the Deputy Commissioner, Simla. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Simla vide Order dated 21st October, 1978 accepted the appeal of the petitioner and remanded the case to the Municipal Corporation, Simla (respondent No. 1) with the direction that the building plan be sanctioned if found in consonance with the existing land-use map as notified under provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977. A copy of this order is Annexure B to the writ petition. Consequently the petitioner approached the respondents for according the sanction for raising the construction. The respondents, however, rejected the plan filed by the petitioner for raising construction by an order dated 12th of July, 1979. A copy of this order is Annexure B to the writ petition. Consequently the petitioner approached the respondents for according the sanction for raising the construction. The respondents, however, rejected the plan filed by the petitioner for raising construction by an order dated 12th of July, 1979. That order is contained in Annexure C which has been reproduced earlier. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court by this writ petition with a prayer that the aforesaid order of the respondents as contained in Annexure C be quashed and that the respondents be directed to consider the building plan filed by the petitioner so that construction can be raised. 4. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents, and in reply it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that the Simla Municipal Corporation does not press the objections as contained in items Nos. 2 and 3 of Annexure C. It is, however, contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that before the plan can be sanctioned, it is necessary that the petitioner obtains a no objection certificate from the Director under the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and we are of the opinion that the contention raised on behalf of the respoddents cannot be sustained. The Additional Deputy Commissioner has passed an order as an appellate authority under the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968, setting aside the previous order of the respondents. The respondents have not challenged that order of the appellate authority. It is binding on the respondents. As such the respondents are directed to carry out the direction as contained in the appellate order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Simla. The respondents cannot insist that the petitioner is liable to obtain permission from the Director under the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act. The respondents are, however, to carry out the direction as contained in the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner Simla (Annexure B). 6. In view of our aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed with costs. Counsel fee assessed at Rs. 100. Petition allowed.