Judgment Tarun Chatterjee, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against an order dated 29th June, 1987 passed by a Single Judge of this Court on an application filed by the appellant (Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority) for recalling and/or modification of the order dated 18th March, 1987 passed by him in a Writ proceeding. 2. The facts of the present case are as follows : The petitioner purchased two cottahs of land being a part and portion of premises No. 15, Dum Dum Road, Calcutta-30 (subsequently referred as 31/2A Birpara Lane, Calcutta) for valuable consideration by a registered deed of sale dated 16th August, 1984. After purchase of the same, the petitioner filed an application for mutating her name in the records of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the CMC) and on mutation and separation by the CMC the said premises case to be numbered as 31/2A, Birpara Lane, Calcutta. The petitioner thereafter on or about 24th February, 1985 for the purpose of constructing a residential house. of her own submitted a building plan before the CMC. The CMC in its turn directed the petitioner to obtain a 'No objection' Certificate from the Calcutta Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as CIT) and also from the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as CMDA). The CIT on 7th November, 1985 issued a 'No objection' certificate in favour 'of the petitioner by which the CIT did not raise any objection against the proposed construction of a residential building by the petitioner. The CMDA however by a letter dated 19th February, 1986 refused permission for construction of the residential building of the petitioner on the ground that the land in question has been earmarked for Rehabilitation Site under the Urban Renewal Scheme of CMDA around Dum Dum Railway Station. The CMDA did not issue any "No objection certificate" in favour of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground. The CMC in its turn could not sanction the building plan of the petitioner on the ground of her inability to get a 'No objection certificate' from CMDA. The CMDA did not issue any "No objection certificate" in favour of the petitioner on the aforesaid ground. The CMC in its turn could not sanction the building plan of the petitioner on the ground of her inability to get a 'No objection certificate' from CMDA. Finding no other alternative the petitioner on 27th February, 1987 moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Appellant and others praying for a direction upon the Appellant not to give any effect to and or to withdraw or cancel or rescind the letter dated 19th day of February 19.86 issued by the CMDA whereby the CMDA had refused to accord permission to construct residential building on the aforesaid plot of land to the Writ Petitioner. It was also prayed in the said Writ Petition that the CMDA be directed to issue 'No objection' certificate and the CMC be directed 10 sanction the building plan submitted by the petitioner with the CMC. At the time of moving the said Writ Application ad-interim order of injunction restraining the Appellant and the CMC their agents, servants and subordinates and each of them from taking any steps in terms of the purported objection of the CMDA by its letter dated 19th February, 1986 was issued. The petitioner was directed to serve a copy of the said order upon the Appellant and the CMC liberty was given to the Appellant and the CMC to pray before the learned Single Judge to ask for vacation and/or variation and/or modification of the said interim order upon notice to the Writ Petitioner. On 2nd March, 1987 the notice of the Writ Petition and the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 27th February, 1987 were served upon the Appellant and the CMC. On 17th March, 1987 the matter appeared in the list of the learned Single Judge but none appeared on behalf of the Appellant and the CMC and the matter was adjourned to 18th March, 1987. On 18th March, 1987 the matter again appeared in the list of the learned Single Judge and again no one appeared on behalf of the said respondents. On 18th March, 1987 the matter again appeared in the list of the learned Single Judge and again no one appeared on behalf of the said respondents. On the same date the learned Single Judge after hearing the learned Advocate for the Writ Petitioner passed a further interim order directing the CMC to ignore the letter dated 19th February, 1986 issued by the CMDA and\ further directing the CMC to sanction the building plan already submitted by the Writ Petitioner without having any 'No objection certificate' from the CMDA for the proposed construction of the residential building of the Writ Petitioner. It appears that on or about 30th March, 1987 only the Appellant filed an application for recalling the order dated 18th March, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the said application) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the learned Single Judge was pleased to pass an order to the effect that the petitioner shall not start any construction on the aforesaid plot of land without the leave of the court and directions for affidavits were given and it was further directed that the matter would come up for hearing again on 19th April, 1987 again. Iv further appears that on or about 23rd April, 1987, the CMC sanctioned the building plan in respect of the premises in question on the basis of the order passed by the learned) Single Judge on 18th March, ]987. The said application was made on the ground that the appellant could not appear at the time of hearing of the writ application as they were misled by, the wrong printing on the names of parties in the cause list of that date, but mainly it was filed on the ground that the Public Beneficial Scheme would be affected and jeopardised unnecessarily. The said application was taken up for hearing on 29th June, 1987 when the learned Single Judge rejected the said application of the Appellant holding that such an application was mis-conceived as there was no plan for extension although it might be framed in future. It was further held by the learned Single Judge that CMDA could not direct the Corporation not to sanction the plan without its 'No Objection Certificate'. It was further held by the learned Single Judge that CMDA could not direct the Corporation not to sanction the plan without its 'No Objection Certificate'. It has been further held that s. 396 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Municipal Act) does not provide that sanction of Building Plan could be refused in the absence of 'No Objection Certificate from the CMDA and that CMDA has no jurisdiction under the law to refuse such permission or prevent the Corporation from sanctioning the plan according to the provision of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act. The learned Judge came to a finding that the order to get a plan sanctioned, permission is not necessary on the basis of a Single Bench decision of this Court reported in 1986 (1) CHN 380 (Samaresh Das vs. CMC). Having aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred by CMDA. Be it noted herein that CMDA, the Appellant herein did not prefer any appeal against the original order dated 18th March, 1987 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. It appears from the order impugned that the said application was disposed of on the basis of the merits of the writ petition and on the basis of the questions of law agitated before the learned Single Judge by the respective parties. 3. It may be pointed out that during the pendency of the appeal an application in the appeal for stay of operation of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, was filed by the Appellant and in course of hearing of the stay application before a Division Bench of this Court, it was admitted on behalf of the Appellant that no Gazette publication under s. 38 of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Planning Act) in respect of the area in question has yet been made. The Division Bench of this Court however passed an order an 14th September, 1987 directing the petitioner not to make any further construction till the disposal of the appeal. The Division Bench of this Court however passed an order an 14th September, 1987 directing the petitioner not to make any further construction till the disposal of the appeal. It appears that in the said application for stay the CMDA also annexed a letter dated 29th July, 1987/3rd August, 1987 of the CMDA addressed to the 1st Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta requesting urgent requisition of the plat of land under the West Bengal Act II of 1948 and far delivering possession thereof to the CMDA as the land as per site plan in needed very urgently far public purpose namely for rehabilitation of displaced persons from Bangladesh. An affidavit was also affirmed by the petitioner in the appeal wherein the writ petitioner had annexed a letter of an adjoining owner wherefrom it would appear that the land of the petitioner in that area does not came under the aforesaid scheme. 4. The learned advocate appearing an behalf of the appellant first contended before us that since the land and/or premises in question is earmarked far rehabilitation of site under the urban renewal scheme of the CMDA around Dum Dum Metra Railway Station, no. plan can be sanctioned by the CMC and no construction can be made even if plan is sanctioned by the CMC. It has however been admitted by the learned advocate for the appellant that no. step has yet been taken by the CMDA for preparation and finalisation of any development plan in compliance with the procedure laid dawn in relevant provisions of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act 1979 (West Bengal Act XIII of 1979) (hereinafter referred to. as the Planning Act). it is not in dispute that this case is governed by the provisions of the Planning Act. 5. In order to deal with the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing an behalf as the appellant it is necessary to deal with certain provisions of the Planning Act. The Planning Act is an act to provide far the planned development of Rural & Urban areas in West Bengal and far matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 6. Chapter VI of the Planning Act provides for preparation of development plans and procedure far their statutory approval. Section 31 provides far preparation of "outline development plan" by the development authority within 2 years of the declaration of a planning area. 6. Chapter VI of the Planning Act provides for preparation of development plans and procedure far their statutory approval. Section 31 provides far preparation of "outline development plan" by the development authority within 2 years of the declaration of a planning area. After preparation of an outline development plan in terms of s. 31 of the Planning Act the development authority shall prepare and forward to the State Government a detailed development plan for the planning area of any of its parts within 3 years of the declaration of the planning area and in case of the entire planning area the detailed development plan shall be prepared within a period of 5 years or within such time as the State Government may from time to time extend. Section 33 provides that a development plan prepared prior to the application to this Planning Act is be deemed development plan under this Act. Section 34 gives the power to the State Government to direct the preparation of development plan in the event (A) no development plan has been prepared within the period prescribed or within such period which the State Government has extend... ed, in terms of s. 32 or (B) where the State Government: is satisfied that the development authority is not taking steps necessary to prepare such a development plan then the State Government at any1 time may direct any officer of the State Government to prepare the development plan and after such preparation the Officer concerned shall submit the development plan to the State Government. Section 35 provides that as soon as the development plan is submitted to the State Government but not later than the time prescribed the State Government shall direct the development authority to make such modification in the development plan as the State Government thinks fit and thereafter the development authority shall make such modification. 7. Under s. 36 the development authority shall publish a public notice after the modification being made if any, in the Official Gazette and in one or more: local newspapers of the preparation of the development plan inviting objections in writing from any person with respect to the development plan within a period of 60 days from the date of such notifications. Section 36 further provides that after the expiry of the period, that is, sixty days from the date of publication of the notice the development authority, shall appoint a committee to consider the objections filed against the preparation of development plan and the said committee shall submit a report within such time as the development authority may fix: in this behalf. Section 36 provides further that after the receipt of the report from the committee but not later than 60 days the development authority shall consider the report and may make such modifications in the development plan as it considers proper and thereafter shall submit the development plan with or without modifications together with the report of the Committee to the State Government. Section 37 provides that after the receipt of the development upon together with the report of the Committee but not later than 60 days the State Government may either approve the development plan with or without modification or return the same to the development authority to modify the plan or to prepare a fresh plan in accordance with such directions as the State Government may issue in this behalf. 8. Section 37 further provides that after modification in the plan or preparation of a fresh plan in accordance with the directions given by the State Government under sub-so (1) the same shall be submitted to the State Government for approval and the State Government shall intimate its decision within 60 days of the receipt of the plan. Section 38 provides that the development authority shall publish a public notice in the Official Gazette and in a local newspaper' or newspapers immediately after the development plan is approved by the State Government .and only thereafter it will be deemed that the development plan will come in to operation from the date of publication of the notice in the Official Gazette. Section 39 provides an opportunity to the person aggrieved by the coming into operation of the development plan to make an application in the High Court within one month of coming into operation of the said plan questioning the validity of the development plan or any provisions on certain grounds. Section 39 provides an opportunity to the person aggrieved by the coming into operation of the development plan to make an application in the High Court within one month of coming into operation of the said plan questioning the validity of the development plan or any provisions on certain grounds. Under sub-so (2) of s. 39 the High Court after giving an opportunity to the development authority' and the State Government of being heard may either stay until the final determination of the proceeding the operation of any provisions contained therein, so far as it effects any property' of the person aggrieved or quash the plan or any provision contained therein if the High Court is satisfied that the development plan or any provision therein is not within the powers conferred by this Act or that the interest of the person aggrieved has been substantially prejudiced by the failure to comply with any requirement of this Act. Subject to this provisions as laid down in sub-so (2) of s. 39 the development plan shall not either before or after it has been approved be questioned in any manner whatsoever. 9. Section 40 provides for amendment of the said development plan at least once in every/I 10 years after the date on which the development plan came into operation for the area and the development authority may submit to the State Government an amended development plan after the necessary alterations and additions are made by them. Section 41 gives a right to the development authority to make such changes in the development plan as may be necessitated by the topographical and cartographical errors and omissions with the previous approval of the State Government at any time after the date on which the approved development plan comes into operation. Under Ss. 42 of the Planning Act power has been given to the State Government to annull any development plan or a portion thereof or any provision contained therein for public interest and for any other sufficient reason and power has also been given to the State Government under s. 43 to acquire land required, reserved or designated in a development plan or a development scheme under Chapter-VIII, of the Planning Act. 10. 10. It is not disputed by the learned Advocate of the CMDA that the CMDA has not taken any step that needs to be taken in the manner stated above before declaring the area in question under a development scheme or a development plan. On the other hand it is admitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the procedures laid down in Chapter- VI of the Planning Act have not yet been taken and completed by the CMDA so far as the area in question is concerned. It is also not in dispute that the development plan has not yet come into operation nor any development scheme bas yet been framed. 11. Therefore we must hold that the development plan has not yet come into operation in the area in question nor any Development scheme has yet been framed. 12. Chapter VII deals with control of development and use of land, s. 44 prohibits the use of land by any person after coming into operation of any development plan otherwise than in confirmity with such development plan. Section 45 prohibits development of any land be any person without payment of development charges and without obtaining permission from the Development Authority. 13. Section 46 provides that any person or body intending to carry out any development on any land, shall make an application in writing to the Development Authority for permission to develop the land. Subs. (2) Qf s. 46 gives the power to the Development Authority to grant permission unconditionally or grant permission subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the Development Authority. Sub-section (3) of s. 46 gives a guideline to the Development Authority in the matter of disposal of the application for permission to develop the land. Section 46(3) of the Planning Act runs as follows :- 3 (i) The concerned authority in dealing with the applications for permission shall have regard to(a) the provisions of the development plan, if it has come into operation; and (b) any other material consideration. 3 (ii) The provision of sub-so (1) shall not apply to applications under sub-so (5). 14. Section 46(4) provides that the Development Authority, while granting and: or refusing to grant permission to develop the land, must give reasons for such granting permission or refusal in its order and further the order of the Development Authority shall be communicated to the applicant. 15. 14. Section 46(4) provides that the Development Authority, while granting and: or refusing to grant permission to develop the land, must give reasons for such granting permission or refusal in its order and further the order of the Development Authority shall be communicated to the applicant. 15. After going through the relevant provisions under Chapters VI and VII as indicated above of the Planning Act it appears to us that under s. 14 even after the development plan had come into force, the CMDA may allow for a period not exceeding 7 years of the use upon such terms and conditions that may be imposed by the concerned authority of any land for the purpose and to the extent, for and to which it is being used on the date in which such development plan comes into operation. On a plain reading of the provisions of Chapters VI and VII of the Planning Act it is clear that control of development and use of land under S. 44 of the Planning Act and prohibition of development without permission from the Development Authority under s. 45 and permission for development under S. 46 of the Planning Act cannot at all be permitted until and unless the procedures such as approval of development plan after following the procedures laid down in Chapter VI of the Planning Act are completed. The Planning Act was passed in the year 1979 and has come into force from 1980, no such development plan has yet been prepared or approved in the area in question. If a development plan had been approved then in that event no person can carry out any work in the area in question except in accordance with the development plan. After going through the Scheme of the Act and the relevant provisions of Chapters VI and VII of the Planning Act it appears to us that the CMDA under the relevant provisions of Planning Act as indicated above had not been conferred with any power to prohibit the use of any' land in a particular manner in contemplation of a development scheme or in contemplation of a development plan. Under s. 46 (3) of the Planning Act, the Development Authority, while dealing with an application for permission to develop land, shall give regard to the provisions of the development plan, if it has come into operation. Under s. 46 (3) of the Planning Act, the Development Authority, while dealing with an application for permission to develop land, shall give regard to the provisions of the development plan, if it has come into operation. Therefore there is no question of giving any importance to a proposed Development Plan or proposed Development Scheme under this Act before it has come into existence. The CMDA had therefore no authority or jurisdiction under the Planning Act to refuse permission to construct on the plot of land of the petitioner on speculation i.e. on the ground that the area in question where the plot of land of the petitioner situate, has been earmarked for the development scheme of the Metro Railway, Dum Dum. If any development plan is prepared and approved, then only the CMDA can refuse permission to construct on the above plot or stop construction in terms of Chapter VI of the Planning Act. The CMDA at this stage under the Planning Act has not been conferred with any power to raise any objection in the matter of sanctioning the building plan of the petitioner before the CMC nor they have any power to stop construction of the proposed building of the petitioner, if it is constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan of the CMC. Although in this case building plan has been sanctioned in compliance with the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court, even then we feel it necessary to deal with the other submission of the learned Advocate of the appellant. 16. The other submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that s. 396 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act 1980 gives a power to the Municipal Commissioner to refuse to sanction a building plan on the basis of the objection raised by the CMDA. In order to meet this argument it is better to set out Ss. 396, 405 and 406 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Section 396 : Sanction or provisional sanction or refusal of building or work. In order to meet this argument it is better to set out Ss. 396, 405 and 406 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Section 396 : Sanction or provisional sanction or refusal of building or work. (1) The Municipal Commissioner shall sanction the creation of a building or the execution of work unless such building or work would contravene any of the provisions of sub-so (2) or Sub-s. (3) of this section or the provisions of S. 404 or section 406 : Provided that no such sanction shall be accorded without the prior approval of the Mayor-in-Council in case of any building, except a residential building, proposed to be erected or re-erected on a plot of 500 square metres or less of land: Provided further that the Mayor-in-Council shall consider the recommendations of the Municipal Building Committee and shall finalize its decision after such consideration. (2) The sanction of a building or a work may be refused of the following grounds: (a) that the building or the work or the use of the site for the building or the work or any of the particulars comprised in the site plan, ground plan, elevation section or specification would contravene the provisions of this Act or the rules and the regulations made thereunder or of any other law in force for the time being ; (b) that the notice for sanction does not contain the particulars or is not prepared in the manner required under this rules and the regulations made in this behalf; (c) that any information or document required by the Municipal Commissioner under this Act or the rules and the regulations made thereunder has not been duly furnished; (d) that in cases requiring a layout plan under s. 364 or s. 365 such layout plan has not been sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (e) that the building or the work would be an encroachment on Government land or land vested in the Corporation; (f) that the site of the building or the work does not abut on a street or projected street and that there is no access to such building or work from any such street by any passage or pathway appertaining to such site. (3) If, for the use of a building, a licence or permission is required from any department of Government or statutory body under any law in force for the time being, and if such licence or permission is not immediately available, a provisional sanction shall be given for the erection of such building and upon the production of such licence or permission and submission of duly authenticated copies thereof, sanction under sub-section (1) shall be given : Provided that the provisional sanction shall be subject to all other provisions of this Chapter. (4) The Municipal Commissioner shall communicate the sanction or the provisional sanction to the person who has given the notice under s. 393 or s. 394; and where he refuses sanction or provisional sanction either on any of the ground specified in sub-I section (2) or under s. 405 or s. 406; he shall record a brief statement of his reasons for such refusal and shall communicate the refusal along with the reasons therefor to the person who has given the notice. (5) The sanction or the provisional sanction or the refusal to the erection of a building or the execution of a work shall be communicated in such manner as may be specified in the rules and the regulations made in this behalf and in the case of sanction or provisional sanction to the erection of a building, the occupancy or use of the group shall be specifically stated in such a sanction. Section 405 : Buildings at corners of streets. Section 405 : Buildings at corners of streets. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act or the rules and the regulations made thereunder or of any other law in force for the time being, the Municipal Commissioner may, in the case of any building which is intended to be erected at the corner of two streets(a) refuse sanction for such reasons as may be recorded in writing, or (b) imposed restrictions on its use, or (c) place special conditions concerning exit to or entry from any street, or (d) require to be rounded off or played or cut off to such height and to such extent as he may determine, or (e) acquire such portion of the site at the corner as he may consider necessary for public convenience or amenity : Provided that no such action shall be taken without any scrutiny of such case by the Municipal Building Committee and without prior approval of the Mayor-in-Council in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. (2) The Municipal Commissioner may, by a written order, require any alteration corresponding to any of the conditions in clauses (b) to (e) of sub-s. (1) to be made to any building completed before the commencement of this Act. Section 406 : Provisions as to buildings and works on either side of new streets or near fly-over& or transportation terminals. (1) The sanction to the erection of any building or the execution of any work on either side of a new street may be refused by the Municipal Commissioner unless and until such new street has been levelled, and in the opinion of the Municipal Commissioner, unless and until such new street has been levelled, and in the opinion of the Municipal Commissioner, wherever practicable, metalled or paved, drained, lighted and laid with a water main, to his satisfaction. (2) The sanction to the erection of any such building or the execution of any such work may be refused by the Municipal Commissioner if such building or any' portion thereof or such work comes within the regular line of any street the position and direction of which has been laid down by the Municipal Commissioner but which has not been actually erected or executed or if such building or any portion thereof or such work is in contravention of any building plan or any other scheme or plan prepared under this Act of any other law in force for the time being. (3) The Municipal Commissioner may refuse permission for the erection of any building, which when completed, will be within such distance from a flyover or over bridge or transportation terminal or other construction as may be prescribed under the rules and the regulations made in this behalf. 17. Sub...section (1) of s. 396 gives the power to the Municipal Commissioner to sanction) the creation of the building if such creation does not contravened any of the provision of s. 396 (2) or sub-so (3) of S. 396 or the provisions of Ss. 405 and 406 at the CMC Act. In this case we do not propose to consider the restrictions made in Ss. 405 and 406 of the Calcutta Municipal Act as it is not the case of CMDA that the proposed building of the petitioner is intended tp be erected at the corner of street or the proposed building of the-petitioner is intended to be erected on either side of a new street or near flyovers or transportation terminals. 18. Section 396(2) gives the specific power to the, Municipal Commissioner to refuse sanction of a building plan on certain groups in clauses (a) to (f) of S. 396(2) of the CMC Act. Section 396(3) gives power to the Municipal Commissioner to grant permission provisionally or otherwise to construct, if for the use of the building a permission is needed from any department of Government or Statutory body. Section 396(4) and (5) deal with the procedure to be followed' by the Municipal Commissioner when he sanctions or refuses to sanction the building provisionally or otherwise. 19. Section 396(4) and (5) deal with the procedure to be followed' by the Municipal Commissioner when he sanctions or refuses to sanction the building provisionally or otherwise. 19. After going through the provisions of S. 396 and other provisions of the CMC Act, it appears to us that the grounds permitting sanction or refusing to grant sanction by the Municipal Commissioner enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) under S. 396(2) of the Calcutta Municipal Act can be applied in this present case. On a plain reading of S. 396(2) of the CMC Act it does not appear to us that it intends that before granting sanction of the building plan, permission must be taken from the CMDA or any other local Authority. The CMDA is a statutory body and is guided by the Planning Act and has been conferred with powers under the Planning Act to refuse permission to construct or use and develop land where the development plan has already come into operation. Therefore the refusal to sanction by the Municipal Commissioner under S. 396 of the CMC Act on the ground of not taking "No objection certificate" from the CMDA is not warranted by the provision of S. 396 of the CMC. Act as such consideration is an extranuous one. As we have already held that there is no existence of any development plan or any development scheme in the area in question, the building plan of the petitioner can be sanctioned under S. 396 of the CMC Act and the said provisions do not provide either expressly or impliedly to take a "No objection certificate" from CMDA or any other local authority before sanctioning the building plan. As no development plan or scheme is in existence, the CMC cannot impose any' condition which may restrict the petitioner to construct her residential building if the conditions enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of S. 396(2) of the CMC Act are satisfied by the petitioner. The Municipal Commissioner may refuse to sanction the building plan under s. 396 of the CMC Act only when the grounds enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of s. 396(2) of the CMC Act exist. If these grounds are not found existing in a building plan the Municipal Commissioner will have no other option but to sanction the building plan. The Municipal Commissioner may refuse to sanction the building plan under s. 396 of the CMC Act only when the grounds enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of s. 396(2) of the CMC Act exist. If these grounds are not found existing in a building plan the Municipal Commissioner will have no other option but to sanction the building plan. Therefore we are of' the view that to sanction a building plan the Municipal Commissioner shall not take into consideration the objection raised by the CMDA or in other words the building plan can be sanction without taking a "No Objection Certificate" from the CMDA or any other local authority. Therefore, in our view, the Single Bench decision reported in 1986(1) CRN 380 (Samaresh Das vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors.) has been correctly decided. 20. For the reasons aforesaid, we must hold that in granting or refusing to sanction of a building plan by the Municipal Commissioner in accordance with s. 396 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, permission is not necessary from the CMDA. 21. Accordingly 'Appeal is dismissed' but there will be no order as to costs. Bimal Chandra Basak, S.: I agree. Appeal dismissed.