Judgment :- Nainar Sundaram, J. There are four appeals. The controversy relates to the multi-storeyed constructions that are being done Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus at Door Nos.10 and 11, Haddows Road, Madras. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, owner of Door No.16, Pycrofts Garden Road, Madras; Mr.Hajee Sulaiman Sait, owner of Door No.9, Haddows Road, Madras; and Mr.Ponniah, owner of No.12, Pycrofts Garden Road, Madras, all neighbours of Mr. Abdul Khader Yunus, are objecting to the multi constructions of the latter. In view of the scope of the points urged before us, instead doing a filigree or trellis work of the facts of the case in the body of the judgment propose to and we do annex to it copies as per the relevant records made available and they shall speak for themselves. Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus sought permission to multi-storeyed building, consisting of ground floor plus ten floors (residential flats) Nos. 10 and 11, Haddows Road, Madras. The Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, hereinafter, for brevity, called the MMDA, and which is the appropriate planning under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act 35 of hereinafter referred to as the Act, by its communication dated 14.1.1988, pointing violation of the Special Rules for multi-storeyed buildings of the Development Control under the Act, refused the planning permission (Annex-ure ‘A’). On 20.1.1989, Khader Yunus preferred an appeal to the Honourable Minister for Housing, Government Tamil Nadu, hereinafter referred to as the Government (Annexure ‘B’). On the same Government called for the remarks of the MMDA. On 17.2.1988, the MMDA wrote Government, offering its remarks (Annexure ‘C’). On 22.2.1988, the Government Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus, bringing to his notice the remarks of the MMDA and gave opportunity to make further representations (Annexure ‘D’). On 23.3.1988, Mr.Abdul Yunus made further representations to the Government (Annexure ‘E’). On 11.5.1988, Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus wrote to the Government for the proposed Ground Plus seven (Annexure ‘F’). On 2.6.1988, the Government wrote to Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus to revised proposal for Ground floor plus seven floors (Annexure ‘G’). Again on Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus wrote to the Government asking for consideration of his request planning permission for Ground Floor plus seven floors (Annexure ‘H’). On ‘the same the Government wrote to the MMDA calling for its remarks on the revised plans (Annexure T). Again on Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus wrote to the Government asking for consideration of his request planning permission for Ground Floor plus seven floors (Annexure ‘H’). On ‘the same the Government wrote to the MMDA calling for its remarks on the revised plans (Annexure T). On 19.7.1988, Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus wrote to the Government undertaking to an access of 7.2 meters as per the rules before the completion of the proposed (Annexure ‘J’). On 28.6.1988, the MMDA wrote to the Government offering remarks revised proposal (Annexure ‘K’). On 3.8.1988, the Government wrote to the MMDA Annexure ‘ L ’ On 1.9.1988, the MMDA wrote to the Government as per Annexure 7.9.1988, Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus wrote to the Government as per Annexure 29.6.1988, the Government passed the order in G.O.Ms.No.1293, Housing and Development Department, hereinafter referred to as the impugned Government allowing the appeal of Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus and directing the MMDA to issue permission for Ground floor plus seven floors after he provides vehicular access (Annexure ‘O’). Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram filed W.P.No.1390 of 1989 seeking to quash the impugned Government Order and to prevent the constructions of Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus. To the effect, W.P.No.1391 of 1989 was filed by Mr.Hajee Moosa Sulaiman Sait and by Mr.Ponniah. The writ petitions were filed in January, 1989. But, even on 25.10.1988, the Government had issued a letter to the MMDA on a further representation by Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus 3.10.1989, modifying the impugned Government Order, and directing the MMDA planning permission after obtaining an undertaking from Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus demolition of the concerned stair-case portion, so as to provide 7.2 metres. The letter 3.10.1988 of Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus is Annexure ‘ P ’ and the impugned letter is Annexure The MMDA had issued the planning permission and the Corporation of Madras the permit to Mr.Abdul Khader Yunuson 12.12.1988. Both refer only to the impugned Government Order and not the impugned letter. W.P.No.5651 of 1989 was filed by Moosa Sulaiman Sait and W.P.No.5652 of 1989 has been filed by Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, questioning the impugned letter and the planning permission of the MMDAand the permit of the Corporation of Madras. Both refer only to the impugned Government Order and not the impugned letter. W.P.No.5651 of 1989 was filed by Moosa Sulaiman Sait and W.P.No.5652 of 1989 has been filed by Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, questioning the impugned letter and the planning permission of the MMDAand the permit of the Corporation of Madras. Several contentions and counter contentions raised by the parties before the learned single Judge, who heard the four writ petitions; yet the concentration was mainly riveted on the questions as to whether the writ petitioners could be held to be persons aggrieved to maintain the writ petitions; whether the impugned letter could survive; and as to whether the impugned Government Order suffered any infirmity on the aspect of the violation of the rules regarding constructions of Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus. The learned single Judge held that the petitioners are persons aggrieved; frowned upon the impugned letter; and upheld validity of the impugned Government Order. As a result, W.P.Nos.1390 and 1391 of were dismissed; and W.P.Nos.5651 and 5652 of 1989 were allowed quashing the impugned letter. W.A.No.1104 of 1989 has been preferred against W.P.No.1391 of 1989 W.A.No.129 of 1990 has been preferred against W.P.No.1390 of 1989. On 28.2.1990, clarification was sought for from the learned single Judge as to what was the order quashed in W.P.Nos.5651 and 5652 of 1989, and the learned single Judge made it clear that only impugned letter has been quashed. As against that order, W.A.No.279 of 1990 has preferred by Mr.Hajee Moosa Sulaiman Sait and W.A.No.380 of 1990 has been preferred Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram. 2. Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram for herself as the appellant and as counsel for Mr.Hajee Sulaiman Sait and Mr.Ponniah, urged before us three aspects. Firstly, she would contend that the Government was considering the appeal of Mr. Abdul Khader Yunus against refusal of the planning permission by the MMDA for the multi-storeyed building of floor plus ten floors and while doing so, the Government had no jurisdiction to Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus to submit a revised plan for ground floor plus seven floors accord sanction to him without directing a scrutiny of the revised plan by the panel contemplated under Clause 16 of Annexure IX of the Development Control Rules. analysis and an assessment of the appellate powers of the Government under the Act, the facts of the case, we are not able to appreciate and uphold this contention. analysis and an assessment of the appellate powers of the Government under the Act, the facts of the case, we are not able to appreciate and uphold this contention. Section the Act speaks about appeal to prescribed authority against any decision or order planning authority, and it reads as follows: "79. Appeal to prescribed authority: (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order the planning authority under Sec.49 of Subsection (1) of Sec.54 may appeal to prescribed authority. (2) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within two months from the date which the decision or order was communicated to him in the manner prescribed, but prescribed authority may admit an appeal preferred after the said period of two months is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within said period. (3) In disposing of an appeal, the prescribed authority may, after giving the parties opportunity of making their representations, pass such order thereon as the prescribed authority may deem fit. (4) The decision or order of the prescribed authority on such appeal shall be final. (5) The prescribed authority may pass such interlocutory orders pending the decision such appeal as the prescribed authority may deem fit. (6) The prescribed authority award costs in proceedings under this section to be paid either out of the Fund account such party to such appeal as the prescribed authority may deem fit." The appeal of Mr. Abdul Khader Yunus was entertained, considered and orders thereon only under this provision. Rule 17(a) of the Development Control Rules reads follows; "17. Areas for buildings of special character:(a) Multi-storeyed buildings; Buildings exceeding 4 floors or 15 metres in height shall not be permitted in area specifically prohibited for construction of such buildings. They shall conform to the ‘ Special Rules Muiti-storeyed buildings ’ given in Annexure IX. A description of the areas set apart for construction is given in Annexure X." Annexure IX, as referred to in Rule 17(a) contains Special Rules for Multi-storeyed buildings and clause 15 thereof reads as follows: "Scrutiny of the plan: The plan shall be scrutinised and forwarded to Government, recommendation of a penal comprising of the following members, for approval: (i) Chief Planner, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority - Chairman, (ii) Chief Engineer, Corporation of Madras -Member. (iii) Director of Fire Service-Member, (iv) Chief Engineer, Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board - Member. (iii) Director of Fire Service-Member, (iv) Chief Engineer, Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board - Member. (v) Chief Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board - Member. (vi) Deputy Commissioner (Traffic) - Member. (vii) Senior Planner, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority - Member - Convenor. suggestion or alterations recommended by the panel and approved by the Government be incorporated in the plans." Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.79 confers on the appellate authority, while disposing of an appeal, comprehensive power to ‘pass such order thereon as the prescribed authority may deem ‘Different statutes confer appellate powers on specified authorities, and their amplitude depend upon the terms of conferment. The set of expressions used in Sec.79(3) or similar it has been used in other statutes, and it has been always countenanced that it gives of widest character on the appellate authority so as to take in a power, of remand. Ismail, as he then was, in Ramamurthi v. Rangachari, (1975)1 M.L.J. 407 , referred to his pronouncement in M.S.Sambamurti Sastriar and others v. The Deputy Registrar operative Societies, Ranipet, North Arcot District and others, W.P.No. 790 of 1969, dated 23.4.1970, wherein construing Sec.96(4) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies (LIII of 1961) where the power of the appellate authority was defined as ‘pass such thereon as the appellate authority may deem fit ’ the learned Judge had observed: "It is an ordinary rule of construction that, where a statute confers a jurisdiction authority, that jurisdiction must be deemed to include and imply all powers that necessary or incidental to the effective exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on the authority unless there is anything contrary expressly provided for in the statute itself." There was also reference to following passage from Maxwell on Interpretation of Eleventh Edition, extracted in the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Income Officer, Cannanore v. M.K.Mohammed Kunhi, A.I.R. 1969 S.C.430: "Where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such or employing such means, as are essentially necessary to its execution." 3. The language employed in Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.79 of the Act is of the widest amplitude without any restriction and it is not possible to circumscribe it, unless there is an warrant for it. The Government was considering the appeal of Mr.AbduI Khader Yunus Sec.79(3) of the Act. The remarks called for by it from the MMDA disclosed certain violations of the rules. The Government was considering the appeal of Mr.AbduI Khader Yunus Sec.79(3) of the Act. The remarks called for by it from the MMDA disclosed certain violations of the rules. Mr.AbduI Khader Yunus deemed it fit to have his purpose served restricting the height of his multi-storeyed constructions, to ground floor plus seven The locale is same, the building is same, and the owner is same. By the reduction height of the same building in the same locale and by the same owner, the application formulae, as per the rules, became relevant. Already there has been satisfaction of clause of Annexure IX for the same building with different height. After the Government seized of the matter, when there has been a reduction of the height of the building, Government by itself as the appellate authority deemed fit to examine the relevant we cannot view such exercise of power as lacking in competency and jurisdiction,because Sec.79(3) is widely and generously couched, with regard to exercise of appellate powers. the instant case, the Government even with regard to the constructions of ground floor seven floors, obtained the expertise of the MMDA. The remarks of the MMDA, though complementary to Mr.AbduI Khader Yunus at the earlier stage, found satisfaction with rules, except regarding vehicular access. It must be noted that the Government exercise of appellate powers has not been called upon by Sec.79(3) to exercise only powers and in the manner of exercise of such powers, as of and by the MMDA. In the statutes, the powers of the appellate authority have, in fact, been circumscribed limited in such a manner. In contrast, it is not so with regard to the Act. Viewed from angle and on the facts of the case, we cannot hold that the Government committed any error or irregularity in the exercise of its powers as the appellate authority. The Government could not also be stated to have exercised the power improperly and indiscriminately. In contrast, it is not so with regard to the Act. Viewed from angle and on the facts of the case, we cannot hold that the Government committed any error or irregularity in the exercise of its powers as the appellate authority. The Government could not also be stated to have exercised the power improperly and indiscriminately. We must record that Mr.K.Doraiswamy, learned counsel for Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus, advanced submissions in the above lines; and he further submitted that assuming, for arguments’ sake, that there has been an irregular exercise of power by Government, without admitting it, yet this Court, in the exercise of its highly prerogative jurisdiction, should not interfere, because there has been no failure of justice, and the asking for writs by the appellants under Art.226 should not be accorded as of course on the facts the present case. Mr.K.Doraiswamy in this behalf placed reliance on the following pronouncements: (i) A.M.Allison v. B.L.Sen, 1957 M.L.J. (Crl.) 175: 1957S.C.J. 268:1957 S.C.R. 359.A.L.R. 1957 S.C. 227 and (ii) Balavantrai v. M.N.Nagrashna, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 407. This submission appeals to us and we accept it. 4. The second contention advanced by Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram was that the Government could not exercise appellate powers, because as per Clause 16 of Annexure IX of Development Control Rules, it is the decision making authority on the recommendation the panel. This contention omits to take the note of the factual features of the present The MMDA has not earlier forwarded recommendation to the Government for the latter to upon the same and there has been only a refusal by the MMDA and in the circumstances, it cannot be complained that the Government was sitting in judgment over own decision. Realising the futility of this contention, it was not seriously pursued further before us. 5. The third contention put forth by Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram was that in the instant violation of the rules continues and there ought not to have been accord of sanction. learned single Judge found that there was no violation of the rules in respect of constructions of Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus, except for vehicular access. The impugned Government Order has made provisions for this drawback and only on satisfaction of conditions imposed therefor, there has been a direction to the MMDA to accord the planning permission. learned single Judge found that there was no violation of the rules in respect of constructions of Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus, except for vehicular access. The impugned Government Order has made provisions for this drawback and only on satisfaction of conditions imposed therefor, there has been a direction to the MMDA to accord the planning permission. However, the impugned letter departed from the impugned Government Order: Rightly, the learned single Judge quashed the impugned letter, leaving in tact the impugned Government Order. We have already noted that the planning permission of the MMDA the building permit of the Corporation of Madras are only in accordance with the impugned Government Order. On 17.41990, this Court, in the course of the hearing of the writ appeals, made the following order: "The controversy in these four writ appeals relates to the constructions that are being by the respondent Abdul Khader Yunus. There is a proposal expressed before us by appellants, who are aggrieved by such constructions and as well as by the respondent Khader Yunus, represented by their respective learned counsel, that the senior Planner Madras Metropolitan Development Authority may visit the spot in the presence of all parties and inspect and find out as to whether the constructions by the respondent Khader Yunus has violated any rule or regulation governing the putting up of constructions and submit a report to this Court after the same having been approved by Member-Secretary of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority and it is stated the parties will accept the said report as reflecting the factual position and they will their say before this Court. This proposal we are implementing and we are giving following direction: (1) The Senior Planner of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority shall visit the and do the inspection of the constructions that are being done by the respondent Khader Yunus in the premises concerned on Thursday the 19th April, 1990 at 5 P.M. and out as to whether the constructions that are being done by the said respondent violate rule or regulation governing such constructions. All the parties are deemed to have notice this date and timing of the inspection and they shall be present at the time of the inspection. All the parties are deemed to have notice this date and timing of the inspection and they shall be present at the time of the inspection. (2) After doing the inspection, as per clause (1) supra, the Senior Planner of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority shall prepare a report and have the approval of same by the Member-Secretary of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority submit the said report to this court on or before 25.4.1990. Copies of the report shall furnished to all the parties concerned in these writ appeals. Call these matters on 25.4.1990 at. 2.15.P.M." Pursuant to the directions given above, the MMDA has submitted the report, and the report shorn off the plan, is annexed here as Annexure ‘R’. The report sums up as follows: "After factual verification of the site, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority have satisfied that the construction of the third respondent have come up only in accordance the plan without violating any rule for multi-storeyed buildings." Now the report is sought to be given a go-by. We do not think that this is permissible appellants. The factual basis, as reflected in the report, was agreed to be accepted thereafter only there was a reservation to make submissions. The factual position, as report, indicating that there is no violation of the rules, deserves acceptance. Subsequently, on 8.6.1990, in response to a letter from Abdul khader Yunus, the MMDA wrote as follows: "From The Member Secretary, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, Madras-8. To Mr.Abdul Khader Yunus, No.10 & 11, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Madras-6. Lr.No.C3/12372/90, dated 8.6.1990. Sir, Sub: MMDA- PP - Proposed construction of G.7 floors building for Residential purpose Door Nos.10 & 11, Haddows Road, Madras - Demolition of Staircase - Certificate Reg. Ref: Your Letter dated 2.6.1990. -------- With reference to your above letter, I am to inform that the site was inspected on 8.6.1990 and found that the staircase on the northern side was completely demolished and the land available for vehicular access way varies from 8.20 m to 8.50 m (i.e. more than the minimum required). Yours faithfully, Sd/- for Member-Secretary." In the said circumstances, we accept the factual finding of the learned single Judge on question of compliance with the rules and they stand reiterated by the subsequent proceedings, referred to above. 6. Yours faithfully, Sd/- for Member-Secretary." In the said circumstances, we accept the factual finding of the learned single Judge on question of compliance with the rules and they stand reiterated by the subsequent proceedings, referred to above. 6. Mr.K.Doraiswami, raised a question with reference to the locus standi of the appellants maintain the writ petitions on the ground that they are not persons aggrieved. There profuse discussion in the common order of the learned single Judge over this aspect and approve every one of the reasonings expressed by the learned single Judge for holding the appellants are persons aggrieved, so as to maintain the writ petitions. The discussion, which has preceded, obliges us to dismiss all the four writ appeals and accordingly they dismissed. No costs. [Annexures omitted - Ed.] Appeals dismissed.