RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN this Writ Petition the petitioner, inter alia, has sought for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation of the city of Bangalore to issue Completion certificate and permission to occupy under section 310 of the Karnataka Municipal corporations Act, 1976 ('the Act' for short), in respect of a building constructed by the petitioner on Site Nos. 771 to 774, O. T. C. Road, Bangalore. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows:- The petitioner had secured a licence from the Corporation of the City of bangalore for construction of a multi-storeyed commercial complex vide L. P. No. 2611/80-81 on 25-10-1980. According to the petitioner, he completed the construction and made an application under Section 310 of the Act to the Commissioner for the issue of the Completion Certificate and permission to occupy the building. On the ground that the commissioner failed to grant or refuse the application within 30 days as required under sub-section (2) of Section 310 of the act, the petitioner presented this petition. The petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 310 of the act on the ground that it confers arbitrary power on the Corporation. Section 310 as amended reads :"310. Completion Certificate and permission to occupy or use: (1) Every person shall, within one month after the completion of the erection of a building or the execution of any such work, deliver or send or cause to be delivered or sent to the Commissioner at his office notice in writing of such completion, accompanied by a certificate in the form prescribed in the bye-laws signed and subscribed in the manner prescribed and shall give to the commissioner all necessary facilities for the inspection of such buildings or of such work and shall apply for permission to occupy the building. 1a. 1a. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where permission is granted to any person for erection of a building having more than one floor, such person shall within one month after completion of execution of any of the floors of such building, deliver or send or cause to be delivered or sent to the Commissioner at his office, a notice in writing of such completion accompanied by a certificate in the form prescribed in the bye-laws, signed and subscribed in the manner prescribed and shall give to the commissioner all necessary facilities for inspection of such floor of the building and may apply for permission to occupy such floor of the building. (2) No person shall occupy or permit to be occupied any such building or part of the building or use or permit to be used the building or part thereof affected by any work, until, (a) Permission has been received from the Commissioner in this behalf, or (b) the Commissioner has failed for thirty days after receipt of the notices of completion to intimate his refusal of the said permission,"as can be seen from sub-section (1) of section 310, the production of a certificate that the petitioner had completed the construction in accordance with the licence and in accordance with law is a condition precedent for a valid application and for invoking the provisions of Sub-section 2 (b) of section 310 of the Act. According to the petitioner, he did furnish such a certificate, which is produced as Annexure-H. It reads: schedule-VIII (Bye Law No. 55) 24-9-1986form OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE i, hereby certify that the erection of building on Plot Nos. 771 to 774, OTC road, Bangalore-2, Division No. , has been supervised by me and has been completed on 8th September 1986, according to, the plans sanctioned vide l. P. No. 2611/80 dated 25- 10-1980. The work has been completed to my best satisfaction, the workmanship and all the materials (types and grade) have been used strictly in accordance with the general and detailed specifications. No provisions of the building Bye-laws,no requisition made, conditions prescribed or orders issued thereunder have been transgressed in the course of the work. The building is fit for use for which it has been erected, constructed and enlarged. I request the occupancy certificate for the premises may be issued. sd/- t. G. Veaugopal, registered E'. No provisions of the building Bye-laws,no requisition made, conditions prescribed or orders issued thereunder have been transgressed in the course of the work. The building is fit for use for which it has been erected, constructed and enlarged. I request the occupancy certificate for the premises may be issued. sd/- t. G. Veaugopal, registered E'. ngmeer, (Registration No. E-35/84-85), 10/2, Kasturba Road (Mazznne Floor), bangalore-1. "the Commissioner neither granted nor refused to give the permission within 30 days. Thereafter the petitioner presented this writ petition. When it came up for preliminary hearing before a learned Judge of this Court, rule nisi was issued and an ex-parte interim order was made. Itreads:-"in view of Section 310 (2) (b) of the karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, the petitioner is permitted to occupy the building involved in this writ petition subject to: (1) Payment of taxes etc. , to be fixed by respondent No. 1 and (2) payment of compounding fees etc. , if there are any deviations and respondent no. 1 fixes the same taking into consideration the deviations in respect of similar buildings as has been done in earlier cases, one of which case is available at Annexure-E". Thus, by the above interim ord r, this Court permitted the petitioner to occupy the building subject to payment of tax. ( 3 ) THE contention of the petitioner is, as the Commissioner failed to refuse permission within thirty days, in view of Section 310 (2) (b) of the Act, the petitioner could occupy the premises. If there was no other circumstance militating against such a position in law, the contention of the petitioner would have been un-exceptionable. But, there are certain circumstances brought to our notice by thelearned counsel for the Corporation, which prevented the Corporation "from conceding the application of the petitioner, as they show that the Certificate given by the registered engineer enclosed to the application of the petitioner made under Section 310 of the Act to the extent it stated that the building was constructed in accordance with law, was actually incorrect. The circumstances related by the learned Counsel for the corporation are as follows: In the case of m. D. NARAYAN v CORPORATION (1982 (1) Kar. The circumstances related by the learned Counsel for the corporation are as follows: In the case of m. D. NARAYAN v CORPORATION (1982 (1) Kar. L. J. S. N. Item 35 DB) decided by a Division Bench of this Court as early as on 11-6-1982, which had received wide publicity, the validity of the licence issued by the Corporation for construction of high-rise buildings was challenged on the ground that it was violative of Outline Development Plan ('o. D. P. ' for short) and the Zoning Regulations promulgated under the provisions of karnataka Country and Town Planning Act. This Court held that license given in that case was contrary to O. D. P. In the course of the Judgment, several similar licenses issued by the Corporation came in for criticism. Relying on the ratio of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M. D. Narayan's case, public interest writ petitions Nos. 7628 to 7630/1986 had been filed questioning the legality of the license issued to the petitioner. As prima facie, the license issued to the petitioner was contrary to O. D. P. if the Commissioner were to give permission to occupy, he would have contravened the decision of this Court in M. D. Narayan's case. Of course nothing prevented the Commissioner to refuse permission. But, it was not done. Whatever that may be, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner could not give permission. ( 4 ) THE petitioner was fully aware of this. It is for this reason, it could not proceed to occupy the premises. The appropriate course for the petitioner was to file an interlocutory application in the pending writ petition seeking for the issue of direction to the commissioner to give permission to occupy subject to the result of those petitions. However, the petitioner preferred to file this petition. During the pendency of this petition, the public interest petitions were allowed, holding that the license issued was contrary to O. D. P. A writ of mandamus was issued to the Corporation to identify the offending portion and to demolish it. (See: GOVINDARAJU v CORPORATION OF THE CITY of BANGALORE), (I. L. R. 1987 Kar. 1570.) the petitioner has presented Special Leave petitions before Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the above judgment. (See: GOVINDARAJU v CORPORATION OF THE CITY of BANGALORE), (I. L. R. 1987 Kar. 1570.) the petitioner has presented Special Leave petitions before Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the above judgment. In that by an interim order the Corporation has been directed to identify the offending portion, but not to demolish that portion until further orders. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the Corporation has submitted that it was for these reasons the Commissioner was not in a position to give permission to occupy and therefore no writ of mandamus could be issued by this Court to the Commissioner to give such permission. Learned Counsel submitted that in any event, the interim order in the terms in which it was granted could not have been granted by this Court and that only a direction could have been issued to the Commissioner to consider the application and/or grant the permission in accordance with law. ( 6 ) WE are convinced that the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the Corporation is sound for the following reasons : (1) Having regard to the fact that the license issued by the Corporation was in violation of the Zoning Regulations annexed to the O. D. P. , the Certificate enclosed to the application under Section 310 of the Act made by the petitioner, to the effect that the construction of the building was in accordance with law, was incorrect. Such a Certificate was issued inspite of the decision of this court rendered four years earlier in M. D. Narayan's case (1) 1982 (1) Kar. LJ. S. N. Item 35 (DB ). Therefore, the petitioner could not claim that it had acquired the right to occupy the building. (2) Section 310 of the Act confers power on the Commissioner to consider an application made under that section and to grant or refuse permission. Therefore, when an application is received by the Commissioner under Section 310 of the Act from any person, the Commissioner has to verify whether there was a license issued for the construction of the building and whether the construction was in accordance with the plans sanctioned and to take a decision as to whether the permission sought for should be granted or refused. There can be no doubt that when such an application is received by the Commissioner, he is under a duty to consider the said application and pass orders within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application and that if he fails to pass such an order, the applicant can proceed to occupy the building. But as pointed out earlier, the first condition to be satisfied for attracting clause 2 (b) of Section 310, is the making of an application in terms of Section 310 (1) of the Act with the prescribed certificate, to the effect that the construction has been made in accordance with law. In the present case as pointed out earlier the Certificate annexed to the application of the petitioner stated that the construction was in accordance with law, though it was not so in view of the decision of this Court in M. D. Narayan's case, (1) The petitioner was fully aware of this position, being a respondent in W. Ps. Nos. 7628 to 7630/86. Whatever that may be, assuming there was an application fully complying with section 310 of the Act, if the Commissioner failed to dispose of the application made under Section 310 (1) within thirty days, the petitioner could proceed to occupy the building and for that, permission of this court was unnecessary. If, however, the petitioner desired to have a written permission of the Commissioner to occupy the building in respect of which he had made an application under Section 310 (1) the petitioner could seek an order from this court directing the Commissioner to consider the application and to make an order in accordance with law. Further, if the Commissioner refused to accord permission arbitrarily, this Court can even issue a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner to accord permission. But, it is settled law that whenever a statutory duty/power is conferred on an authority to do any act and it fails to exercise its power or perform its duty, this court can compel it to exercise the power or to perform duty, but cannot itself do it. Therefore, this Court cannot make an order according permission to the applicant, for, the power to accord permission is conferred on the Commissioner and this Court under article 226 of the Constitution has only the power to compel the Commissioner to exercise his powers under Section 310 of the Act. Therefore, this Court cannot make an order according permission to the applicant, for, the power to accord permission is conferred on the Commissioner and this Court under article 226 of the Constitution has only the power to compel the Commissioner to exercise his powers under Section 310 of the Act. With great respect to the Learned Judge who made the interim order, we are of the view that no such order, interim or final, could be made by this Court. However, the fact remains, an interim order permitting the petitioner to occupy the building was granted and the petitioner has occupied the building. (3) Further, in view of the decision of this court in M. D. Narayan's case (1) and the decision of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in B. K. SRINIVASAN v CORPORATION (A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 1059) confirming the decision of this Court, the Corporation has no power to grant a license contrary to o. D. P. and- if granted it would be illegal and action has to be taken to bring the construction in accordance with law. In the present case, though the license was issued earlier to the decision in M. D. Narayan's case, the construction was long after the decision. Therefore, the interim direction issued to condone deviation, and to collect compounding fee is inconsistent with the Division Bench decision in M. D. Narayan's case. Therefore, no such final order can be granted. ( 7 ) AS far as the constitutional validity of section 310 of the Act is concerned, we find no substance. Even when such Sections are incorporated into the Act, we are seeing that the law is flagrantly violated and it goes without saying that in the absence of such a provision, there will be no safety at all for enforcement of the provisions of the Country and Town Planning Act, the O. D. P. promulgated thereunder and the provisions of the municipal Corporations Act and the Rules and Bye Laws framed thereunder. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we make the following order: the Writ Petition is disposed of with the clarification that the interim order dated 26-12-1986 granted in this petition is subject to the final order made in govindaraju v Corporation, (ILR 1987 karnataka 1570) and the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the Special Leave petition presented against the order in govindaraju's case. Writ petitions disposed of. --- *** --- .