This, application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the rejection/revocation of the permission to Construct the house by the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority. (GMDA) vide letter dated 10.1.94 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, GMDA, Guwahati, the legality and validity of the notice dated 10.1.94 issued by the Town Planner, GMDA, Guwahati issued in exercise of the powers under section 85, 87 and 88 of the Act of 1985 asking the petitioner to stop the construction and to show cause as to why the same should not be demolished and removed also has been challenged. The notice dated 10.1.94 asking the petitioner to stop the construction is Annexure 10 to the writ application and the other notice is Annexure 11. Both of them are quoted below : "As per the 1985 Act of the Guwahati City Development Authority, you have without taking necessary permission from the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority taken up/completed developmental works in the place situated within the areas to which Greater Guwahati Master Plan and Zoning Regulations are applicable and thereby you have violated the arrangement as laid down by section 25 of the aforesaid Act as well as the Greater Guwahati Master Plan and Zoning Regulations. Therefore, under section 85(10) and 87 (1) of the above Act you are hereby directed not to proceed further with the above disputed developmental works from the date of the receipt of this notice until further order from the undersigned. Observe in the case of any violation of the order necessary action will be taken against you under section 85 (5) and 87 (2) (3) of the above act. Moreover you are also directed to submit to the undersigned within 10 days from the date of the receipt of this notice a show cause reply as to why necessary action shall not be taken under section 88 (1) of the above Act to remove the disputed construction or under section 34, 85 (3) you shall not be punished or both the action can be taken for violating the Greater Guwahati Master Plan and the Zoning Regulations. If after receipt of this notice if. If after receipt of this notice if. you do not submit a show cause or do not comply with the order of the notice in such case necessary action will be taken against you in accordance with law or necessary order will be passed." "Sub: Issue of No Objection Certificate under section 25 the GMDA Act, 1985 for construction of RCC (Building of Floor) area of each floor ground Existing/1st Existing/2nd Existing/3rd 185.40 Sqm/4th 185.40 sqm./5th at Sahar Ulubari Guwahati. Ref: Your application dated 15.5.93 and 20.12.93. Sir/Madam Reference to your application for permission to erect a building at Village Sahar Ulubari of Ulubari Mouza (Dag No.215 Patta No.786) on an access road for residential purpose in accordance with plans submitted with it, your application is hereby: I....... 2 . Rejected for reason given below : 3....... The construction of 3rd floor as you already carried out is not as per drawing submitted by you." 2. The brief facts are as follows : The petitioner in the year 1986 applied to. the Commissioner of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation for construction of RCC building on the plot of land own by him and on 17.3.86 the authority granted permission for construction of the ground floor, 1st floor and 2nd floor of the building as prayed for, i.e. Annexure 2 to the writ application. That No Objection Certificate is quoted below : " Sub : No Objection Certificate for construction. Ref: Your application dated 1.2.86. Sir, With reference to your above application, permission to erect a building at Rehabari is hereby sanctioned under section 327 read with section 328 of Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1963 as required to comply with conditions mentioned overleaf in accordance with plans submitted without modification. The particulars of the construction for which permission accorded is given below : (a) Proposed use : Residential. (b) Type of construction : RCC (c) No. of floor : Gr-Floor/first/second. (d) Margin towards : North - 5'-0", South -12'-0" East - 5'-0" West - 5'-0" with cantilever Projection of x on x side : (e) Floor area : Gr. Floor (1) 1560 sqm (2) 1636 Upper Floores (1) 1560 sqm (2)1636 sqm. (f) Dag No. 108/215 Patta No.786/548 Ward No.22 (1st & 2nd Floor) only Village Ulubari Town Mouza Ulubari." 3. The building constructed by the petitioner was duly assessed by the Municipal Corporation and the petitioner paid taxes for the same. Floor (1) 1560 sqm (2) 1636 Upper Floores (1) 1560 sqm (2)1636 sqm. (f) Dag No. 108/215 Patta No.786/548 Ward No.22 (1st & 2nd Floor) only Village Ulubari Town Mouza Ulubari." 3. The building constructed by the petitioner was duly assessed by the Municipal Corporation and the petitioner paid taxes for the same. The notice of assessment and the tax paying receipt are Annexure 3 and 4. On 31.1.92 the petitioner submitted another application, before the Commissioner, Gauhati Municipal Corporation for permission to construct the 3rd and 4th floor of the building and the necessary fee was also sought to deposited. In the month of May, 1993 the Corporation informed the petitioner that in the meantime power of granting permission for construction of the building had been withdrawn from the Corporation and it has been conferred on the Gauhati Metropolitan Development Authority under GMDA Act, 1985 (hereinafter called the Act). Accordingly, the petitioner applied in prescribed form alongwith a fee of Rs.20/- before the authority reviewing his prayer for permission to construct the boundary wall around the land in question and the necessary application and fee for the same was also paid. On 16.5.93 and 29.6.93 the authority informed the petitioner that his proposal was under consideration, i.e. Annexure 7 to the writ application. Site draws inspected by the authority and there was no order refusing the permission as prayed for. On 16.8.94 the Town Planner asked the petitioner to submit the fresh proposal as per the requirement regarding high rise building and also to submit the structural stability certificate for construction of an additional floor over the existing building. This letter is at Annexure 8 to the writ application. It may be stated herein that in the meantime the petitioner completed the construction of the 3rd floor in accordance with the application made by him arid on receipt of this letter (Annexure 8) the petitioner wrote to the. authority that the construction of the 3rd floor is complete but even then he submitted the necessary map and stability certificate to show that: the construction of the 3rd floor have been made in accordance with the plan submitted before the authority earlier. No reply to it have been received and accordingly the petitioner submitted another reminder dated 20.12.93 (Annexure 9). Thereafter the impugned notices vide Annexure 10 and 11 were issued. No reply to it have been received and accordingly the petitioner submitted another reminder dated 20.12.93 (Annexure 9). Thereafter the impugned notices vide Annexure 10 and 11 were issued. Prayer has been made in this writ application that these two notices be quashed with a further direction directing the authority not to take any action in pursuance of the aforesaid notice. 4. I have heard Mr. DN Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and e Mr. AB Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of he respondents wherein it is stated inter alia as follows : " In fact the petitioner had violated the following requirement in respect of 3rd floor of his building : (1) Construction has been undertaken without any permission. (2) Construction is in gross violation of the Zoning Regulation & Master Plan. (3) Rear Margin of 5' was maintained as against 14'. (4) Only 5' or side set back was maintained as against 9'. (5) As per table I Pt. 4 (b) (i) of the Master Plan and Zoning Regulation building shall not exceed 3 story without the provision in the side and rear of additional height of the building in addition to the set backs already maintained, subject to a maximum of 10 feet side set back and 20 feet rear set back." 6. It is further stated in the affidavit that the interpretation of section 25 of the Act sought to be given by the petitioner is not correct. It is also stated that there cannot be any deemed permission under the Act particularly when the construction made by the petitioner is without the authority of law and the construction had been made without obtaining prior permission of the GMDA. 7. Mr. DN Choudhury, counsel for the petitioner submits that under section 25 of the GMDA Act, 1985 it must be deemed to have received the permission. Section 25 (4) of the aforesaid Act which is relevant for this purpose may be quoted: " 25. 7. Mr. DN Choudhury, counsel for the petitioner submits that under section 25 of the GMDA Act, 1985 it must be deemed to have received the permission. Section 25 (4) of the aforesaid Act which is relevant for this purpose may be quoted: " 25. (4): The Authority shall not refuse the permission except on the ground of contravention of proposals contained in the Plan or the Zoning Regulation and unless the permission has been refused within a period of one month from the receipt of the application or such other information as may be called for by the authority under sub-section (3), it shall be presumed that the permission has been given." 8. This, section almost is in pari materia with section 328 (4) of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971. Section 328 (1) of the aforesaid Act provides that every person who intends to erect or re-erect a building shall submit to the Corporation the building plan etc. as per the requirement as mentioned therein and the provision to sub-section (4) provides that an application shall be disposed of within 60 days from the date of receipt. 9. The main purpose behind the permission to construct a building is that indiscriminate construction without following the building Bye-laws may lead to chaotic situation and this may also create the difficulty in the future. 10. In the instant case, the application was filed on 5.5.93. On 15.5.93 fee was also deposited. On 29.6.93 the petitioner was informed that the application for permission shall be placed before the Committee for High Rise Building and on 16.8.93 the notice was issued to the petitioner by the GMDA for modification of the proposal submitted earlier and to furnish the structural stability certificate. So from the date of receipt of the application, more than 1 month has elapsed and by operation of law it will be deemed that there was permission to construct the 3rd floor. This question of deemed permission came up for consideration in (1993) Supp (1) SCC 61 (Ansel Properties and Industries (P) Ltd & another vs. Delhi Development Authority & others) where in para 14 of the judgment the Supreme Court has pointed out as follows : "Bye-laws No.6.7.4. This question of deemed permission came up for consideration in (1993) Supp (1) SCC 61 (Ansel Properties and Industries (P) Ltd & another vs. Delhi Development Authority & others) where in para 14 of the judgment the Supreme Court has pointed out as follows : "Bye-laws No.6.7.4. of the building bye-laws 1983 of the Delhi Development Authority reads as under: If within 60 days of the receipt of notice under 6.1 of the Bye-laws, the authority fails to intimate in writing to the person, who has given the notice, of its refusal or sanction or any intimation, the notice with its plans and statements shall be deemed to have been sanctioned provided the fact is immediately brought to the notice of the authority in writing by the person who has given notice and having not received any intimation from the authority within fifteen days of giving such written notice. Subject to the conditions mentioned in this bye-law, nothing shall be construed to authorise any person to do anything in contravention or against the terms of lease or titles of the land or against any other regulations, bye-laws or ordinance operation on the site of the work." 11. In view of the specific and clear provision in the Act it must be held that there was deemed permission and the authority had no right to issue the notices because it is well settled law that once a permission is granted, the authority cannot issue any notice to pull down the building. 12. Mr. AB Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits the following decisions : 1. AIR 1994 P&H 1 (FB) (Bakshish Kaur Saini vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh & others) where the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court pointed out as follows : "While clear and imperative prohibitions are contained in the Act regarding the erection and construction of buildings in contravention thereof, there is no provision which provides for or can be construed as even in enabling provision, tending to legalise any unauthorised construction by mere lapse of time. It is, no doubt, true that in terms of the first proviso to section 15 of the Act, a time limit has been imposed for the issuance of notice upon the owner for demolition of the alleged unauthorised construction and no such notice can, therefore, be issued after this time limit has expired, but issuance of such notice is out one of the three consequences that can flow from contravention of the provisions of the Act and the rules pertaining to erection of building. The defaulting owner's liability for action against him under section 8A and 15, namely resumption of the site, forfeiture and fine would still subsist. It cannot, therefore, be said that by mere lapse of time, namely six months after the completion of the unauthorised construction that it would stand legalised." 13. In the case in hand, the construction made by the petitioner cannot be deemed to be unauthorised construction inasmuch as I have held above that the permission shall be deemed to be granted and as such this case does not help the respondents. 2. (1991) 3 SCC 341 (Pratibha Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra & others) where the Supreme Court in para 6 of the judgment pointed out as follows : "...... that the tendency of raising unlawful constructions and unauthorise encroachments is increasing in the entire country and such activities are required to be dealt with by firm hands. Such unlawful constructions are against public interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of multistoreyed buildings......" 14. There is no dispute with regard to this proposition of law. But in this case, as I have found that the 3rd floor was constructed by submitting necessary application and by operation of section 25 (4) of the GMDA Act it must be deemed that there was permission to construct the 3rd floor. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the Annexures 10 and 11 to the writ application shall stand quashed. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the Annexures 10 and 11 to the writ application shall stand quashed. But it is made clear that the petitioner shall not construct the 4th floor of the building without complying with all the requirements of Building Bye-laws as may be dictated by the authority and if such construction of the 4th floor of the building is made without complying with the requirement of the Bye-laws, the authority may take appropriate action with regard to that floor, i.e. 4th floor and this judgment and order shall not be a bar for the authority to take steps in accordance with rules and law. 15. With the above direction and observation, this writ application stands disposed of.