JUDGMENT S.N. Jha & Ashish N. Trevedi, JJ. 1. The Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1981 (Bihar Act 40 of 1982), hereinafter called 'the Act', was enacted to provide for planned development of various, regions of the State of Bihar and matters ancillary thereto. Section 35 of the Act prohibits construction of building without sanction of the Authority created under the said Act. It says, "no person shall erect or commence to erect any building, or make any addition or alteration to any building, except with the previous sanction of the Vice-Chairman, and in accordance with the provisions of the Chapter (Chapter VI) and the regulations made under this Act". Section 37 lays down the procedure for grant or refusal of sanction for erection of building or addition or alteration thereto. It provides that the Vice-Chairman of the Authority shall sanction the erection of the building or addition or alteration if such erection, addition or alteration thereto would not contravene any provision of the Act or any regulations made thereunder. Where the proposed erection, alteration would be in contravention of the provisions of Section or any regulations made under the Act or any other law, sanction shall be refused. The Vice-Chairman has to communicate the sanction to the person concerned. In the case of refusal he has to record reasons and communicate the same to him. Sub-Section (5) of Section 37 further provides that if within the period of four months of application no order in writing is made by the Vice Chairman and no notice of the order in this connection is sent to the applicant, "the applicant shall give a notice under registered post intimating that sanction shall be presumed if nothing to the contrary is received or notified in respect of his application within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice". In other words, Section 37(5) contemplates deemed sanction of proposed erection or addition, alteration thereto. Section 43 of the Act provides that sanction shall remain valid upto three years during which period completion certificate to be granted by the Authority mentioned thereunder should be submitted and if this is not done, the permit shall have to be revalidated. The revalidation shall be subject to rules and regulations then in force. 2. Section 43 of the Act provides that sanction shall remain valid upto three years during which period completion certificate to be granted by the Authority mentioned thereunder should be submitted and if this is not done, the permit shall have to be revalidated. The revalidation shall be subject to rules and regulations then in force. 2. In view of the finding of the learned Single Judge [reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 664 ] regarding interpretation of Section 43 of the Act two questions arise for consideration In this appeal; (a) whether a building plan once revalidated requires further revalidation if the construction work is not completed during the period of revalidation, that is, whether a revalidated building plan remains valid for all times to come, as held by the learned Single Judge, and (b) what is the meaning of the words "then in force" occurring in Section 43? Whether it refers to the period/point of time when the original sanction was granted or the time of revalidation? 3. The facts of the case, so far as relevant, are as follows. Respondent no.2, Hem Narayan Jhunjhunwala, writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge, applied to the Patna Regional Development Authority, called 'PRDA' or 'Authority' in short, for sanction of the building plan in terms of Section 36 of the Act which was granted on 21.1.77. He submitted the plan for revalidation/renewal on 20.1.80. On 10.11.81, he was asked to deposit the requisite fee which was done on the same day. No action in the matter, however, was taken by the Authority until 26.2.88 when notice was issued asking him to produce the map etc. and stop construction in the meantime. The respondent appeared before the Vice-Chairman pursuant to the notice on 2.3.88 and informed him that construction work was going on as per the sanctioned building plan. The Vice-Chairman vide his order dated 26.2.88/8.4.88 took the view that even if the respondent's case that the revalidation petition has been filed and, prescribed fee therefor had been deposited in November, 1981 be accepted the period of revalidation had expired in 1984 itself. Since the respondent did not apply for further revalidation thereafter he cannot carryon the construction work. Accordingly, he maintained the direction as contained in the notice dated 26.2.88. Since the respondent did not apply for further revalidation thereafter he cannot carryon the construction work. Accordingly, he maintained the direction as contained in the notice dated 26.2.88. The respondent challenged the validity of the said notice dated 26.2.88 and the order dated 8.4.88 by way of a writ petition, which has given rise to this letters patent appeal. 4. The learned Single Judge in his impugned judgment held that the provisions of Section 43 of the Act are regulatory in nature. He observed in this connection that although even regulatory provisions are required to be observed, non-observance in all cases does not make the act illegal unless the same is found to be intentional. The learned Single Judge further held that Section 43 does not provide for any period of revalidation and once the sanctioned building plan is revalidated the same may be continued even after expiry of three years. The learned Single Judge also held that the word 'then in force' occurring in Section 43 refer to the point of time when the sanction was granted and not the time of making revalidation petition. Thus according to the learned Judge, any variation or change In the rule thereafter will not make the sanction Invalid after expiry of three years. As regards the respondent's case, the learned Single Judge held that the Authority never made its intention known to him that he was required to obtain revalidation on expiry of each three years' period from the original sanction or the revalidation. Respondent did not suppress any material fact nor made any fraudulent representation. The learned Judge observed that the conduct of the Authority on the other hand gave sufficient support to the fact that until February, 1988 they never thought that Section 43 had to be enforced. On these findings the learned Single Judge quashed the impugned notice and the order and allowed the writ petition. 5. Before testing the correctness of the findings and the observation of the learned Single Judge and adverting to the questions framed above, it would be useful at this stage to notice the provisions of Section 43 in extenso as hereunder : "43. Duration of sanction. 5. Before testing the correctness of the findings and the observation of the learned Single Judge and adverting to the questions framed above, it would be useful at this stage to notice the provisions of Section 43 in extenso as hereunder : "43. Duration of sanction. - The sanction once accorded shall remain valid upto three years during which period completion certificate from the registered architect/engineer or a person approved by Vice-Chairman, in the form prescribed in the building Regulation shall be submitted and if this is not done the permit shall have to be revalidated before the expiration of this period on payment of such fee as may be prescribed. Revalidation shall be subject to the rules and regulation then in force." 6. Mr. Uday Bhanu Roy, counsel for the appellant submitted that the findings and observations of the learned Single Judge are contrary to the express provisions of Section 43 of the Act and the Division Bench, therefore, in letters patent jurisdiction should set aright the error. Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, counsel for the respondent highlighted that the Authority did not pass any order on the revalidation petition which It was required to do until February, 1988 when the respondent was asked to appear before the Vice-Chairman and submit the show cause in the matter of proposed/ongoing construction work. He submitted that had the Authority taken a prompt decision had communicated the same to the respondent, he (respondent) would have been saved from the situation. In support of his contention counsel relied on the decision in the case of Raj Restaurant vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in AIR 1982 SC 1550 . On question of law, counsel submitted that there is nothing in Section 43 which compels the person to apply for revalidation at the expiration of three years period and the observations of the learned Singh Judge in this connection are unassailable. He also urged that once sanctioned building plan in revalidated, it relates back to the date of sanction and therefore the words 'then in force' refer to the date/point of time when the original sanction was granted and not the time when the revalidation is asked for. 7. The submission of Mr. Mukherjee as regards non-communication of the decision on the revalidation petition within reasonable time appears to be well founded. But we do not think this would materially improve the respondent's case. 7. The submission of Mr. Mukherjee as regards non-communication of the decision on the revalidation petition within reasonable time appears to be well founded. But we do not think this would materially improve the respondent's case. Section 37(5) as noticed above provides for deemed sanction on expiration of period of four months subject to observing certain formalities. In the instant case, although no formality as contemplated by Section 37(5) appears to have been observed by the respondent, we would assume in his favour and conclude that on expiration of the period of four months from the date of deposit of the requisite fee on 10.11.81 there was deemed revalidation of the sanctioned plan. However, as the Vice-Chairman has observed in his impugned order, even if the period of three years is counted therefrom, it expired a long time back in 1984. 8. It is difficult to agree with the learned Single Judge that once the sanctioned building plan is revalidated such revalidation would remain valid even after expiry of the period for all times to come. If the law provides for a period of validity of the original plan, it is difficult to hold that the revalidation will be for an indefinite period. 9. We are inclined to agree with the learned Single Judge that provisions of Section 43 of the Act are regulatory in nature the object being to ensure that the construction work is carried on and completed in accordance with the sanctioned plan and within the stipulated period. The question is what would be the consequence of the default in this regard. The default may be of two types. One, where the construction work is completed beyond a stipulated period of three years reckoned from the original grant of sanction or the date of revalidation but without any deviation from the sanctioned plan. The second type of default may be by way of deviation from the sanctioned plan. If the building is constructed or alterations/additions thereto are made contrary to the sanctioned plan it is open to the Authority to take action as envisaged by Section 40 of the Act. The second type of default may be by way of deviation from the sanctioned plan. If the building is constructed or alterations/additions thereto are made contrary to the sanctioned plan it is open to the Authority to take action as envisaged by Section 40 of the Act. If, however, the default falls in the first category, that is to say, the construction work is not completed within the stipulated period but there is no variation or deviation from the sanctioned plan or the provisions of the Act or regulations framed thereunder, we do not think recourse to the provisions of Section 40 of the Act would be necessary or that the construction made beyond that period would become illegal notwithstanding the language of Section 43 to the effect that the sanction shall remain valid upto three years. In other words, any construction within the framework of the sanctioned plan as well as the Act/Regulations beyond the period of three years would be illegal (sic). This interpretation, in our opinion, would harmonise the interest of the citizens as well as the Authority. Having regard to the ever escalating cost of construction, no person would like to withhold construction or not complete it within the period of three years. In fact it would be in his own interest to do it even earlier, as early as possible. It is because of the financial constraints or other unavoidable circumstances that he would defer the construction work beyond the stipulated period. 10. We would accordingly answer the first question in these words. The period of revalidation, like the period of original sanction, would expire after three years but if the building is constructed or additions/alterations are made thereto in accordance with the sanctioned plan as well as the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, such construction/alteration/addition will not be illegal notwithstanding the expiry of the stipulated period. 11. Regarding the second question, it would appear that the reason underlying the requirement of seeking revalidation under Section 43 appears to be that in course of time the rules and regulations or bye-laws framed by the Authority might have undergone material changes. Where the construction work has already been completed within the stipulated period and such change takes place during currency of the validity period, there is no question of the amended provisions being made applicable. Where the construction work has already been completed within the stipulated period and such change takes place during currency of the validity period, there is no question of the amended provisions being made applicable. Where, however, the construction work has not been completed and revalidation is asked for, surely, the Authority has to consider the question of further sanction/revalidation on the basis of the amended provisions. Having regard to the scheme envisaged in the Act as stated at the very outset, which is to ensure planned development of different regions, it cannot be denied that the regulations or the bye-laws may be amended in consonance with the need of the hour and, therefore, it would be anomalous to hold that although rules and regulations have been amended, the question of revalidation should be considered on the basis of the provision as they stood when the plan was initially sanctioned. In our opinion, therefore, the words "then in force" refer to the point of time when the revalidation is asked for and not the time of initial sanction. On this point also we are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge. 12. Having clarified the legal position as best as we could do, we would direct respondent no. 2 to appear before the Vice-Chairman of the Authority within six weeks when his case will be considered in the light of the observations made hereinabove. We express no opinion on the merit of the case. 13. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is thus modified to the extent and in the manner indicated above and the appeal disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to cost.