RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the legality of the licence granted by the Corporation of the City of bangalore to respondents 4 to 6 on the ground that the licence so granted was in violation of the building bye-laws of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follow : The petitioners are either the owners of sites or of buildings or occupants of buildings situated in and around Primrose Road and Brunton Road Cross of Mahatma gandhi Road, Bangalore. Their grievance is that licence for construction of group houses had been granted in favour of respondents 4 to 6 in flagrant violation of the building bye-laws framed by the Corporation of the City of Bangalore, which in turn have been framed in conformity with the Zoning regulations promulgated under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and country Planning Act, the obedience to which is mandatory. At the time of hearing of the petitions, in view of the objection that the petitioners could not have filed one memorandum of writ petition challenging the legality of the licence granted to respondents 4 to 6, which constitutes separate causes of action involving separate and distinct disputed questions of fact, the petitions were confined to the legality of the licence granted in favour of respondent No. 4. ( 3 ) THE plea of the petitioners in relation to the licence granted in favour of respondent no. 4 are these : The total site area of the building in respect of which licence has been granted is 16570 sq. ft. or 1660 sq. mts. The licence granted is for the construction of ground floor, first floor and second floor. In each of the floors, the licence granted is for construction of four dwelling houses. In all the building consists of 12 dwelling houses. Therefore, the building comes under the definition of 'group housing' as defined in the bye-laws of the Corporation. The licence granted is in clear violation of bye- law No. 12 read with Table 4g of the Building Bye-laws and also in violation of Table 4a under bye-law 9. 1. 3. of the bye-laws which prescribes the maximum plot coverage, floor area ratio and maximum number of floors having due regard to the width of the road facing the concerned site. 1. 3. of the bye-laws which prescribes the maximum plot coverage, floor area ratio and maximum number of floors having due regard to the width of the road facing the concerned site. ( 4 ) THE plea of the fourth respondent in the statement of objection is as follows : The building in question does not fall within the definition of the word 'group housing'. Even if it can be regarded as 'group housing' it is not prohibited by the bye-laws. There is no violation of Table 4a below bye-law No. 9. 1. 3 of the bye-laws. The width of the road in front of the site belonging to the fourth respondent is a little more than 9 metres and the maximum plot coverage permitted under table 4a is 60 per cent and the permitted floor area ratio is 1. 25. According to the licence granted, the actual plot area coverage is only 45% and the floor area is within the permitted limit of 1. 25. ( 5 ) THOUGH some dispute was raised by the petitioners about the actual width of the road in front of the site belonging to the fourth respondent, the objection was not pursued after the fourth respondent filed the actual measurement of the road as certified by the assistant Executive Engineer of the Corporation, stating that the width of the road was a little more than 9 metres. ( 6 ) TABLE 4a below bye-law 9. 1. 3 of the bye-laws prescribe the maximum plot coverage permitted, the floor area ratio, the number of floors for different site areas having due regard to the road width facing the site on which construction is proposed to be undertaken by any person. According to the said Table, in cases where the sites do not face roads of prescribed width noted against each in the table, the floor area ratio and the maximum number of floors applicable to corresponding width of roads applies notwithstanding the area of the site. In the present case, having regard to the fact that the site belonging to the fourth respondent faces the road which is a little above 9 metres, the maximum percentage of plot coverage permitted is 60% and the floor area ratio permitted is 1. 25. As stated earlier, the area of the site is 1,660 sq. mts. In the present case, having regard to the fact that the site belonging to the fourth respondent faces the road which is a little above 9 metres, the maximum percentage of plot coverage permitted is 60% and the floor area ratio permitted is 1. 25. As stated earlier, the area of the site is 1,660 sq. mts. The actual plot coverage permitted under the licence is 45 per cent. Further, having regard to the fact that the area of the site belonging to the fourth respondent is 1,660 sq. mts. the maximum floor area of all the floors put together which could be permitted is 2,075 sq. mts. According to the licence granted the total floor area of the building comes to only 1,990 sq. mts. Therefore, it is clear that there is no violation of bye-law 9. 1. 3 and the conditions prescribed in Table 4a of the bye-laws. ( 7 ) NOW the next question for consideration is, whether the building in question can be regarded as 'group housing'. The words 'group housing' is defined under bye-law 2. 32. It reads:"2. 32. Group Housing - Group of multistoreyed housing for more than one dwelling unit where land is owned jointly (as in the case of co-operative societies or the public agencies, such as local authorities or housing boards etc.) and the construction is undertaken by one agency/authority. "learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that a multi-storeyed building with more than one dwelling unit can be regarded as 'group housing' if only the land is owned jointly by more than one person or a society, or agency and the construction is undertaken by one agency or authority, and as in the present case, the site belongs to only the fourth respondent and he has undertaken the construction, it does not fall within the definition of the words 'group housing' as defined in bye-law 2. 32. ( 8 ) IT is difficult to appreciate as to how a multi-storeyed building consisting of more than one dwelling unit can be regarded as 'group housing' if the land is owned jointly by more than one person or a society or agency and cannot be regarded as 'group housing' if the owner happens to be a single individual. 32. ( 8 ) IT is difficult to appreciate as to how a multi-storeyed building consisting of more than one dwelling unit can be regarded as 'group housing' if the land is owned jointly by more than one person or a society or agency and cannot be regarded as 'group housing' if the owner happens to be a single individual. It should be observed that much thought has not been bestowed in giving the definition for the words 'group housing' and this is a matter to be looked into by the Corporation authorities. There is however, another definition of the words 'group housing' at bye-law No. 12. As the learned counsel for the petitioners addressed arguments strongly relying on the said bye-law, it is necessary to set out the said bye-law, which reads :"12. GROUP HOUSING : Means a building or a group of buildings constructed with one or more floors each consisting of one or more dwelling units and having common service facilities like; stair-case, lift, balcony, verandah, etc. Note (1) : Group housing shall be permitted only in the areas specially designed for the purpose by the Bangalore development Authority providing all the necessary infrastructural facilities. Note (2) : Group housing may be allowed in other areas also excluding the areas where the road width is less than 12m in width in the intensely populated areas. provided all the requirements mentioned above are satisfied also, the charges required for providing and expanding the facilities such as water supply, drainage, electricity etc. , shall be met by the owner according to the rates prescribed by the government. "according to the definition of 'group housing' incorporated in the above bye-law, it means a building or a group of buildings constructed with one or more floors each consisting of one or more dwelling units and having common service facilities like, stair-case, lift, balcony, verandah etc. Here again there is a drafting defect. Having regard to the very words 'group housing', it should mean that in each of the floors atleast there is more than one dwelling unit, but according to the definition if each floor consists of one or more dwelling units, it would mean 'group housing'. It is difficult to appreciate as to how a house consisting of only one floor and one dwelling unit can be regarded as group housing. It is difficult to appreciate as to how a house consisting of only one floor and one dwelling unit can be regarded as group housing. Therefore, it appears to me that instead of using the words 'one or more dwelling units' in the definition, the words 'more than one dwelling unit' should have been used. Even so having regard to the fact that the definition sought to be given in the bye-law is for 'group housing', the only reasonable way of understanding the bye-law is as follows :"group HOUSING : means a building or a group of buildings constructed with one or more floors each consisting of more than one dwelling unit and having common service facilities like stair-case, lift, balcony, verandah, etc. "having ascertained the true meaning of the words 'group housing', there can be no doubt that the building proposed to be constructed by the fourth respondent is certainly a group housing as admittedly in each of the floors there are four dwelling houses and in all there are 12 dwelling houses. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to Note (1) to Bye-law no. 12 the group housing could be permitted only in the areas specially designed for the purpose by the Bangalore Development authority providing all the necessary infrastructural facilities. If the above note stood alone, as it is not the case of the fourth respondent or the Corporation or the bangalore Development Authority that the area on which the fourth respondent has been given the licence to construct the building is not designed for the purpose of group housing providing all the infrastructural facilities, there would have been no alternative than to declare the licence as in violation of law. But there is Note (2 ). According to that note, group housing could be permitted in other areas also. According to the said note, if the site concerned is situated in intensely populated area, group housing could be permitted if only the width of the road is not less than 12 metres. From this it follows that if the site of the fourth respondent was located in intensely populated area, as admittedly the road width is only a little above 9 mts. , but much less than 12 mts. , the licence could not have been granted. From this it follows that if the site of the fourth respondent was located in intensely populated area, as admittedly the road width is only a little above 9 mts. , but much less than 12 mts. , the licence could not have been granted. But, admittedly the site in question is situated in an area which is earmarked in the Comprehensive Development Plan promulgated under the Planning Act as central Administrative Area. Therefore, in view of Note (2) 'group housing' could be permitted in this area even if the road width was less than 12 metres. This of course if subject to the condition that the condition prescribed in Table 4a is not violated. As stated earlier, as far as the condition prescribed in Table 4a is concerned, there is no violation. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that even on the basis that group housing could be permitted on the site belonging to the fourth respondent, the conditions set out in Table 4g must be complied with. The learned counsel pointed out that in order to permit group housing the minimum size of the plot must be half hectare according to Table 4g and as in the present case as the site of the fourth respondent was much less than half hectare, the licence granted was in plain violation of Table 4g and consequently it is liable to be declared invalid. ( 11 ) A reading of Note (2) below bye-law 12, would show that the conditions prescribed under Table-4g is applicable to sites situated on roads whose width is not less than 12 metres. The Table also prescribes what would be the extent "of maximum plot coverage and height of the buildings in respect of sites facing roads whose width is not less than 12 metres or 15 metres or 18 metres, as the case may be. Therefore, it is clear the conditions prescribed under Table 4g is applicable for construction of buildings which fall within the definition of 'group housing' in intensely populated areas and has no application to the site of the fourth respondent, which is located in the Central Administrative Area. Therefore, it is clear the conditions prescribed under Table 4g is applicable for construction of buildings which fall within the definition of 'group housing' in intensely populated areas and has no application to the site of the fourth respondent, which is located in the Central Administrative Area. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even on the basis that the licence granted to the fourth respondent can be regarded as a decision to allow 'group housing', such allowance could be subject to the condition that the charges required for providing and extending the facilities such as water supply, drainage etc. , shall be met by the owner according to the rates prescribed by the Government and that in the present case no such condition has been imposed. This last contention of the petitioners is well founded. As the corporation authorities considered that on the site of the fourth respondent, which is located in Central Administrative Area, 'group housing' could be permitted and they have permitted construction of 16 dwelling units in one building, it would certainly require the extending of the facilities of water supply, drainage, electricity etc. , and any extra expenditure in that regard has to be met by the owner - the fourth respondent. Therefore, it should be observed that the corporation or other concerned statutory authorities are entitled to estimate the extra cost of providing facilities such as water supply, drainage, electricity etc. , and to collect the same from the fourth respondent. ( 13 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I make the following order: (I) The writ petitions are dismissed, but subject to the observation in paragraph 12 of this order, which shall be looked into by the Corporation, the bangalore Development Authority or other concerned statutory authorities : (ii) The writ petitions in so far they relate to the challenge to the grant of licence for construction of building in favour of respondents 5 and 6 are concerned, they are dismissed without expressing any opinion on merits and leaving liberty to the petitioners to file separate writ petitions, if they are so advised and if there are valid grounds to do so. --- *** --- .