JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. 1. According to the petitioners they submitted an application under Section 7 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for permission to develop a commercial-cum-residential colony in the name of 'Banwari Batika' on the land situated near Kamlila ground at Delhi-Meerut Road, in Meerut comprising Khasra Nos. 1883, 1884, 1885, 1886, 1891 to 1896. On 2nd February, 1973 the aforesaid application was returned by the Prescribed Authority along with the lay out plan as unapproved with the objection that the site in the lay-out-plan was in the area of T-3 and C-3 land uses of which was confined to Bus-Stand and commercial purposes under the Master Plan for Meerut. The petitioners thereafter on 22nd February, 1973 made an application with the prayer that in the lay-out plan submitted by them markings and locations of the roads and the area T-3 and C-3 may be made and the map be sanctioned. On 24-12-1973 the Prescribed Authority informed the petitioners that the map which has been submitted cannot be approved unless the Transport Department makes alignments of the roads of the colony with the roads of the Transport Nagar. On 8th February, 1974 an application was again made to the Prescribed Authority stating that the sanction of the plan has been pending with him since a long time and that the same be returned to the petitioner as duly sanctioned. According to the petitioners as no reply was received from the Prescribed Authority a notice under Section 7 (4) of the Act was sent on 20-12-1974 with the prayer that the order of sanction along with the sanctioned map be sent within 15 days so that the draft agreement of the estimate for development may also be submitted for approval. 2. It appears that ultimately on 12th June, 1975 the Prescribed Authority approved the plan partially after laying down certain conditions which were mainly to the effect that in the lay-out plan on the areas marked as T-3 and C-3 roads, parks etc. shall be demarcated in accordance with the land use. 2. It appears that ultimately on 12th June, 1975 the Prescribed Authority approved the plan partially after laying down certain conditions which were mainly to the effect that in the lay-out plan on the areas marked as T-3 and C-3 roads, parks etc. shall be demarcated in accordance with the land use. Feeling aggrieved an appeal was filed under Sec. 15 of the Act to the Controlling Authority, who by his order dated 12-2-1976 held that the Prescribed Authority has not granted the sanction in accordance with the directions issued under the Act and that the plan could not be deemed to have been approved under Sec. 7 (4) of the Act. The Controlling Authority directed that action should be taken in accordance with the direction No. 10 and the petitioner should be directed to make necessary modifications and a report should be obtained from the Mukhya Nagar Evam Gram Niyojak and the petitioner should be directed to submit the agreement for development of the colony on the amended approved plan and the petitioners should be restrained from making any development work. A revision was thereafter filed to the State Government under Sec. 15-A of the Act which was disposed of on 29-7-1978 and the revision was dismissed. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the three orders of the Prescribed Authority, dated 12-6-75, the Controlling Authority dated 12-2-1976 and of the State Government dated 29th July, 1978. The impugned orders have been challenged firstly on the ground that because of the provisions of Sec. 7 (4) of the Act the Prescribed Authority was guilty of omission in refusing to grant permission upon a notice given by the petitioners and in law no order could be passed by the Prescribed-Authority after the expiry of 30 days. Secondly, it has been urged that at the time when the plan was submitted by the petitioner there was no sanctioned Master Plan for the city of Meerut and thus the petitioner was entitled to get sanction in respect of the entire area and the Prescribed Authority could not grant permission only in respect of part of the area excluding area T-3 and C-3 as being earmarked for Bus-stand and commercial purposes. Thirdly it has been urged that the Controlling Authority and the State Government have erred in holding that there have been contraventions of the provisions of the Act, Regulations and directions issued thereunder. 3. In the present writ petition a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Government and a counter-affidavit on behalf of the Meerut Development Authority. After hearing of the case had commenced the petitioner filed two supplementary affidavits and a supplementary counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Meerut Development Authority in reply of which a supplementary rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. These supplementary affidavits have been filed mainly for the purposes of showing as to whether there was a Master Plan in existence at the time when the application for approval of the plan was submitted on behalf of the petitioners. Sri A.P. Misra, counsel appearing for the Meerut Development Authority has not been able to show us that on the date of passing of the impugned orders either by the Prescribed Authority or the Controlling Authority or the State Government there was a sanctioned Master Plan in respect of Meerut city including the land in respect of which plan was submitted. The petitioners have, however, shown us that now a Master Plan has come into operation so far as the Meerut City is concerned. 4. As far as the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in our opinion the contention is without any force. Section 7 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, was as follows:- "7. Application for permission:-(1) Every person desiring to obtain the permission referred to in Sec. 6 shall make an application in writing to the Prescribed Authority in such form and containing such information as may be prescribed in respect of the development, building, excavation or means of access to which the application relates. (2) On receipt of such application the Prescribed Authority, after making such enquiry as it considers necessary in relation to any directions which may have been issued under Sec. 5 or in relation to any other matter, and having regard to such directions shall, by order in writing either grant the permission, subject to such conditions, if any as may be specified in the order, or refuse to grant such permission. (3) Where permission is refused, the ground of such refusal shall be communicated to the applicant in such manner as may be prescribed, within 90 days of the receipt of such application. (4) Where no orders are communicated within the period mentioned in subsection (3) granting or refusing the permission, the applicant may by a written communication call the attention of the Prescribed Authority to the omission or neglect, and if such omission or neglect continues for a further period of 30 days, the Prescribed Authority shall be deemed to have permitted the proposed work: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be construed to authorize any person to act in contravention of the directions issued under this Act." From the narration of the facts as given above, it is clear that the application under Sec. 7 for permission was moved on 20-12-1972 and on 2nd February, 1973 the same was returned by the Prescribed Authority. It is thus clear that within 90 days of the submission of the application the Prescribed Authority had refused permission thus there could be no question of applying the provisions of Sec. 7 (4) of the Act in respect of the application dated 20-12-1972. The petitioners have, however, tried to argue that the application was re-submitted on 22-2-73 and action should have been taken on that application within 90 days. A bare perusal of paragraph 4 of the writ petition would show that the same application dated 20-12-1972 had been re-submitted for making of locations of land which fell in area T-3 and C-3 (land uses of which was confined to Bus-stand and commercial purposes). In our opinion, re-submission of same application dated 20-12-1972 in respect of which the Prescribed Authority had refused permission, could not entitle the petitioners for a fresh decision from the Prescribed Authority unless the alignments of the Roads etc. was done by the Transport Department. The petitioners have thereafter referred to their application dated 8th February, 1974 and in the aforesaid application also reference has been made to the application dated 20-12-1972. The aforesaid application dated 8th February, 1974 could also not be treated as a fresh application. As far as the notice given by the petitioners on 8-2-1974 is concerned, the same also cannot give any benefit to the petitioners inasmuch as the aforesaid letter is also in relation to the earlier application dated 20-12-1972. The aforesaid application dated 8th February, 1974 could also not be treated as a fresh application. As far as the notice given by the petitioners on 8-2-1974 is concerned, the same also cannot give any benefit to the petitioners inasmuch as the aforesaid letter is also in relation to the earlier application dated 20-12-1972. From the entire correspondence, which has been filed on the record of the case, it appears that the Prescribed Authority had submitted the petitioner's plan to the Transport Department for alignment of roads as in the layout of the petitioner's plan some land had to be left for bus-stand and some land for commercial purposes. In our opinion the Prescribed Authority had refused permission on 2-2-1973 i.e. within 90 days of the submission of the application dated 20-12-1972. However, the Prescribed Authority had made it clear that the aforesaid application would be liable for consideration again when the alignments of the roads by the Transport Department had been earmarked in the map submitted by the petitioners. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 12-6-1975 sanctioned the petitioners' plan after excluding portions T-3 and C-3 earmarked for bus-stand and commercial purposes was, in fact, earmarked in the map submitted by the petitioners. In such circumstances there was no question of application of provisions of Sec. 7 (4) of the Act and by no stretch of imagination a presumption could be raised under Sec. 7 (4) of the Act that the Prescribed Authority shall be deemed to have permitted the proposed work. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has thus no force. 5. As far as the second argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no sanctioned Master Plan for the Meerut city at the time of the passing of the impugned orders, it may be stated that the same position has been conceded by the counsel appearing for the respondents and is also clear from the affidavits filed by the parties in this case. The petitioners' contention, therefore, is correct that there being no sanctioned Master Plan earmaking areas T-3 and C-3 for any particular use, the Prescribed Authority could not refuse sanction to the petitioner in respect of those area. The petitioners' contention, therefore, is correct that there being no sanctioned Master Plan earmaking areas T-3 and C-3 for any particular use, the Prescribed Authority could not refuse sanction to the petitioner in respect of those area. It may at this place also be noticed that Sec. 5-A and sub-clause (g) to sub-section (8-A) of Sec. 7 of the Act have been substituted by U.P. Act No. 41 of 1976 which was published in the U.P. Gazette, Extra-Ordinary dated 22nd November, 1976. From the provisions of the Act, as it stood on the date of the passing of the order by the Prescribed Authority it is clear that there was no such provision, which entitled the Prescribed Authority to refuse the permission on the ground that the proposed plan was in contravention of some proposed Master Plan. From the aforesaid it is thus clear that there being no Master Plan on the date of the passing of the order by the Prescribed Authority there was no question for refusing permission on the basis of any Master Plan which may have been only in the shape of proposal at that time. 6. This now takes us to the last ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner which challenges the two subsequent impugned orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the State Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the Controlling Authority on the ground that before the Controlling Authority the appeal had only been filed by the petitioners refusing permission in respect of part of their land and no appeal had been preferred by the Development Authority and thus the Controlling Authority erred in even setting aside the permission which had been granted by the Prescribed Authority. Section 15 (2) of the Act gives a right to the person aggrieved to file an appeal to the Controlling Authority and the order of the Controlling Authority would become final. In our opinion the Controlling Authority will have all the powers which the Prescribed Authority had and he could either modify the order of the Prescribed Authority or may set it aside as a whole if it found that it was in contravention of the provisions of the Act, Regulations or the directions issued under the Act. In our opinion the Controlling Authority will have all the powers which the Prescribed Authority had and he could either modify the order of the Prescribed Authority or may set it aside as a whole if it found that it was in contravention of the provisions of the Act, Regulations or the directions issued under the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners have, however, urged that the observations of the Controlling Authority that the granting of the permission by the Prescribed Authority was not in accordance with the R.B.O. Directions is incorrect and there was no violations of the R.B.O. Direction No.10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the Prescribed Authority had made no violations of the directions and that it was not at all necessary for the Prescribed Authority to have first got the estimates approved and completed any other formality before granting permission to the petitioners. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 14 of the Act in the year 1960 directions have been notified. Direction No. 10 is as follows:- "10. Powers to stay action where progress is not according to sanctioned plan: (a) Should the Prescribed Authority determine at any time that the execution of the lay out plan and the construction of other works is not proceeding according to sanctioned plans and statements or is below specification or is in violation of any provisions of these directions or any regulations or bye-laws for the time being in force, it shall notify the person who has obtained sanction to that effect and require him to make necessary adjustments and corrections. (b) Should the person holding the sanction fail to comply with the requirements as aforesaid at any stage, the Prescribed Authority may, in consideration with the Controlling Authority cancel the sanction after affording him an opportunity to show cause against the proposed cancellation. On the cancellation of the sanction no further works shall be undertaken or carried out or be permitted at site until a fresh sanction has been hereafter obtained." The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show us as to how Direction 10 had any application to the case. Direction 10 only gives power to stay action where progress is not according to the sanctioned plan. Direction 10 only gives power to stay action where progress is not according to the sanctioned plan. The matter before the Controlling Authority was in respect of the permission which had been granted by the Prescribed Authority and the Controlling Authority was required to determine as to whether the petitioners were entitled to permission in respect of the entire area or areas including the areas marked T-3 and C-3 earmarked for other purposes. The counsel for the respondents has not shown us any provision which required prior consultation with the Chief Town and Village Planner and has also not been able to show us any provision under which the estimates for development of the colony had to be sanctioned prior to the granting of the permission and the petitioners had to enter into an agreement for development with the Prescribed Authority. In our opinion the impugned order of the Controlling Authority is, therefore, liable to be quashed. The order of the State Government also suffers from the same vice and is also liable to be quashed. 7. In so far as the order of the Prescribed Authority is concerned, the same in our opinion is liable to be quashed inasmuch as, as has been observed above, at the time of the passing of the impugned order there was no Master Plan approved for the city of Meerut, and thus on the basis of a merely proposed Master Plan permission could not be refused to the petitioner. The order of the Prescribed Authority is, therefore, also liable to be quashed, and the petitioners are entitled to the relief of re-consideration of their application dated 20-12-1972 afesh. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the petitioners are entitled to get permission on the basis of law as it stood on the date of the moving of the application. This argument has been advanced as admittedly now there is an approved Master Plan and in view of the newly added provisions of sections 5-A and Section 7 (2-A) (g) of the Act, the Prescribed Authority will be able to grant permission only when the use of the proposed building or the plan is in conformity with the Master Plan. This argument has been advanced as admittedly now there is an approved Master Plan and in view of the newly added provisions of sections 5-A and Section 7 (2-A) (g) of the Act, the Prescribed Authority will be able to grant permission only when the use of the proposed building or the plan is in conformity with the Master Plan. The learned counsel for the respondents has, however, on the other hand, submitted that the application should be directed to be disposed of in accordance with law as it stands on the date of the disposal of the application. IN our opinion, in order to decide the aforesaid question, it will have to be seen as to what was the right which the petitioners has at the time of moving the application. Even at the time of moving the application there were in existence U.P. (Regulation of Buliding Operations) Directions, 1960. Direction No. 8 (a) of the aforesaid Direction provided as follows:- "8. Sanction of Plans and Statements: (a) The Prescribed Authority shall not approve the plans or statements unless it is satisfied that- * * * * (ii) The development and proposed use of the land and standards are in conformity with the proposals and standards of the Master Plan of the regulated area approved by the controlling Authority". Section 7 (2) even at the time of making of the application required the Prescribed Authority to have regard to the Directions while granting the permission. Form the aforesaid it is thus clear that even at the time of the making of application the Prescribed Authority could not approve the plan in case there was a Master Plan of the regulated area unless the same was in conformity with the proposals and standards of the Master Plan. The only right which the petitioners can be said to have is an existing right to get the permission in accordance with the provisions of the Act. By adding Sections 5-A and 7 (2-A) (g) to the Act, the only change which can be said to have been brought about is that after making of the Master Plan for the regulated area grounds have been provided in Section 7 on the basis of which the permission can be refused. By adding Sections 5-A and 7 (2-A) (g) to the Act, the only change which can be said to have been brought about is that after making of the Master Plan for the regulated area grounds have been provided in Section 7 on the basis of which the permission can be refused. As has been stated above, in so far as refusal of permission on the basis of non-conformity with the Master Plan is concerned, the same was in existence even before the aforesaid provisions were added. It is, therefore, clear that the amendment made in the Act on the practical level makes no difference as earlier provisions were contained in the Directions which had statutory force and now the same provisions have also been added to Section 7 (2-A) (g). The Prescribed Authority in our opinion while granting permission will have to follow the provisions of the Act as amended and will also take into account the approved Master Plan. 8. For the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is allowed and the three impugned orders passed respectively by the Prescribed Authority, the Controlling Authority as well as the State Government dated 12-6-1975, 12-2-1976 and 29-7-1978 are quashed. The Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the application of the petitioners dated 20-12-1972 afresh within a period of three months of the filing of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioners, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs. Petition allowed.