Judgment : 1. BY the Court -Petition no. 1 is a proprietorship firm and the petitioner no. 2 is the proprietor. 2. RESPONDENT no. 2 NOIDA Export Processing Zone (in short NEPZ) had issued booklets inviting Entrepreneurs for establishing their export oriented industrial units. Petitioners applied for a licence for establishment of their, unit at NOIDA. They also applied for allotment of two plots of land in NEPZ area for the construction of their Factory. Plot nos. 17 and 18 in NEPZ area were allotted in the name of the petitioners. A licence agreement between the petitioner no. 2 and the respondent ho. 1 was entered into in the month of April, 1987. Possession was also delivered to the petitioners.. 3. ON 30-5-87 an application along with a proposed plan for construction of building over these two plots was submitted by the petitioners before the respondent no. 5 after depositing the requisite amount of fee as required by the Board. 4. THE petitioner no. 1 was served with a show cause notice on 29-6- 1987 stating that on 27-6-87 a spot inspection was made by the Architect, Building Cell and it was found that without prior sanction or permission of the Authority the petitioners had started "digging earth and construction of basement which was unauthorised and in violation of NOIDA Building Regulations and Para III-C of the lease deed. By the said letter the petitioners were required to show cause why the building plan submitted by them be not rejected. Petitioners filed a detailed reply stating that no breach of any rule or lease deed has been committed. 5. PETITIONERS wrote a letter on 24-8-1987 to the Chief Executive Officer of NOIDA Export Processing Zone stating that the building plan has wrongly been withheld by the authorities inspite of the fact that they have replied to the show cause notice. 6. IT was also brought to the notice of the authorities that since 40 days have passed from the date of receipt of the building plan, hence as per Regulation 16 (ii) of the Building Regulations and Directions the building plan submitted by the petitioners would be deemed to have been sanctioned. The letter remained unreplied. Reminders were sent and the petitioner no. 2 kept on meeting all the officials but nothing was done. The letter remained unreplied. Reminders were sent and the petitioner no. 2 kept on meeting all the officials but nothing was done. Ultimately an order was passed on 7/10-8-1987 which runs as follows : "Please refer to your application dated 30-5-1987 for approval of building plan of C-Z, NEPZ, NOIDA. The objections were intimated to you vide this office letter no. NO 1DA/SC/BP-4257/1623 dated 9-6-1987. Your reply dated 9-6-1987 was not found satisfactory and two of the objections were found unremoved by you. On making the site inspection, it was found that the construction was carried out without prior approval of the building plan. Show cause notice was issued to you on 29-6-1987. Your reply dated 3-7-1987 was examined and has been found unsatisfactory. Hence it is not possible to sanction your building plan at this stage." 7. THE matter remained pending with the opposite parties for the last four years but the plan had hot been sanctioned. THE petitioner no. 2 had been running practically every day to the office but without any result. Ultimately they filed this writ petition on 29-4-1991 for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately sanction the building plan for construction on plot nos. 17 and 18 at NEPZ area and also to issue directions to -the opposite parties to extend all assistance and help as promissed to the petitioners by the opposite parties vide their booklet on the basis of which petitioners applied for allotment of land for setting up the industrial unit. 8. HEARD Sri Vineet Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U. S. Awasthi for the opposite parties. The building activity in NOIDA is regulated by building Regulations and Directions issued by NOIDA. It was published in the U.P. Gazette in February, 1986. 9. REGULATION 16 of the Building Regulations and Directions runs as follows :- "16. Sanction of refusal of building permit-(i) the Chief Executive Officer shall verify or cause to be verified the facts given in the application for permit' and Annexures from technical, administrative and legal point of view. The title of land shall also be verified. He may either saction or refuse a building permit or may sanction it with such modifications or thereupon shall communicate the decision to the applicant in the prescribed form given in Appendix-4. The title of land shall also be verified. He may either saction or refuse a building permit or may sanction it with such modifications or thereupon shall communicate the decision to the applicant in the prescribed form given in Appendix-4. (ii) If within forty days of the receipt of the application, refusal or sanction is not granted the application with its annexures shall be deemed to have been allowed and the permit sanctioned provided such fact is immediately brought to the notice of the Chief Executive Officer in writing by the applicant within twenty days after the expiry of the said period of forty days but nothing herein shall be constructed so authorities any person to do anything in contravention of the building regulation and directions. (iii) - In case of the refusal, the Chief Executive Officer shall quote the reasons and relevant provisions of the regulations which the plan contravenes, as far as possible in the first instance itself and ensure that no new objections are raised when they are resubmitted after compliance of earlier objections. (iv)........" 10. THE validity of the order dated 7/10-8-87 it to be examined in view of sub-reg. (iii) of Regulation 16. THE only reason mentioned in the order is that it was found that without prior approval the digging had been started by the petitioners and also a mention was made about two objections which remained unremoved by them. But there is no discussion as to the nature of the objections raised by the respondents. THE order does not give the 'reasons nor mentions the provisions of the Regulations said to have been violated. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the said order is not in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 16 (iii) of the Building Regulations and Directions. 11. IT was the mandatory duty of the Chief Executive Officer while rejecting the plan, even temporarily, to have given the reasons but the order is silent. Though, the order says that it was not possible to sanction the building plan at this stage but there is no provision in the Regulation for withholding the sanction temporarily. Either the plan has to be sanctioned or is to be rejected. Though, the order says that it was not possible to sanction the building plan at this stage but there is no provision in the Regulation for withholding the sanction temporarily. Either the plan has to be sanctioned or is to be rejected. Even if the petitioners had started digging the earth in expectation of the sanction of the plan, that does not violate the Regulation or any clause of the lease deed. Digging of foundation does not amount construction of the building. IT might be a process in the construction but the actual construction starts when the brick work begins. 12. THE impugned order amounts to the rejection of the plan and this action of the opposite parties is wholly arbitrary and not in accordance with the Regulations. THE action of the respondents and subsequently their inaction in proceeding with the matter is a glaring instance of harassment which the petitioners are meeting at the hands of the opposite parties. In normal course we would have remanded the matter for reconsideration by the opposite parties but no useful purpose would be served by putting the petitioners again at the mercy of the authorities who had been arbitrarily harassing them. 13. ACCORDINGLY we allow the writ petition, quash the order dated 7/10-8-1987 and issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the opposite parties to sanction the plan submitted by the petitioners on 30-5-1987 within a period of one month from the date of filing of a certified-copy of this order before the opposite party no. 5. If there is any valid objection by the authorities, the same would be removed by the petitioners within a week from the date of the objection. If the authorities have to raise any objection that will be done within a week from the date of filing of this order. Petition allowed.