JUDGMENT - A.P. SHAH, J. :---The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to direct the State Government and the Municipal authorities to enforce their powers under Rule 22(5) of the Development Control Rules, 1994 read with section 291 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and the Circular dated 18th January 1996 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) and to provide petitioners' property an access through the adjoining property of respondent No. 4 viz. the Consulate General of Islamic to State of Afghanistan over the portion of the land shown in yellow hatched lines in the plan annexed as Ex. A to the writ petition by declaring that portion to be a public street. 2. An advertence, though brief, to the factual antecedents leading to this petition is necessary to appreciate the controversy between the parties in proper perspective. The petitioners are a partnership firm carrying on business as builders and developers. Under a conveyance dated 6th September, 1994, the petitioners have purchased the property known as "Dani Chawl" bearing City Survey No. 278 situate at Malabar Hill, Mumbai. There is a 125 year old structure standing on the said property which consists of ground plus three storeys occupied by tenants. There are approximately three hundred persons residing in this building. The property in question is situated at level of almost sixty feet below the level of the main road being Walkeshwar Road and the only access to the building is through a pathway of the five feet in width through the adjoining property of Parsi Tooty Agyari Trust situate on the eastern side. The pathway comprises of about forty naturally carved steps which lead to the petitioners' property. It seems that in cases of emergency, the occupants of the building were in a position to have an access through the property bearing CTS No. 281 lying to the eastern side of the petitioners' property. However, it transpires that CTS No. 281 had been fully developed about ten years back and a twenty-eight storeyed building has been constructed on the said property. As a result, there is no motorable access now available for the petitioners' property. On the southern side of the petitioners' property is the property bearing CTS No. 278 belonging to the respondent No. 4, the Consulate General of Islamic State of Afghanistan. As a result, there is no motorable access now available for the petitioners' property. On the southern side of the petitioners' property is the property bearing CTS No. 278 belonging to the respondent No. 4, the Consulate General of Islamic State of Afghanistan. It is an admitted position that the structure standing on the respondent No. 4's property had been demolished about three years back and the plot is lying vacant. The respondent No. 4 has applied to the municipal authorities for sanctioning plans for constructing a building. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that their property is a landlocked property, The petitioners through their architect made a representation dated 22nd September, 1994 to the Municipal Commissioner for providing access under the provisions of Rule 22(5) of the Development Control Rules, 1991 (DC Rules). The DC Rules of 1991 are framed under section 22(m) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Under Rule 22(5), Municipal Commissioner is empowered to provide access to the land-locked property at the cost of the owner of the land-locked property. Rule 22(5) reads as follows :- "22(5) In the case of a plot, surrounded on all sides by other plots i.e. a land-locked plot which has no access to any street or road, the Commissioner may require access through an adjoining plot or plots which shall, as far as possible be nearest to the street or road to the land locked plot, at the cost of the owner of the land-locked plot and such other conditions as the Commissioner may specify." 4. It seems that initially no time-frame was stipulated for providing an access under Rule 22(5). Hence the State Government was pleased to issue guidelines for implementation of the regulations. Those guidelines have been adopted by the Bombay Municipal Corporation under Circular dated 18th January, 1996. Salient features of the guidelines and the fulfillment of the norms may be noted at this stage. The guidelines provide for an application to be made to the Municipal Commissioner for providing access to the land-locked property. The Municipal Commissioner is thereafter required to find out how access can be provided to the land-locked property within the stipulated period of ninety days. The guidelines provide for an application to be made to the Municipal Commissioner for providing access to the land-locked property. The Municipal Commissioner is thereafter required to find out how access can be provided to the land-locked property within the stipulated period of ninety days. Once the Commissioner is satisfied that the property is land-locked and it is necessary to provide an alternative access, he is required to give notice to the owner of the adjoining plot holder to give access to the land-locked land within fifteen days of the notice. The rules as well as guidelines provide for compensation to be paid to the owner of the property for such alternative access. The owner of the land-locked land is required to pay compensation for such access. If the owner of the adjoining property is not prepared to accept the proposed access, the Municipal Commissioner is required to declare the access as public street under section 291 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (BMC Act). The minimum width of access provided under the rules and guidelines is six meters and the guidelines even provide that the owner of the land from which access is granted is entitled to reduction in compulsory open space without charging premium. 5. Section 291 of the BMC Act confers powers on the Commissioner to make new streets and reads as follows :- "291. The Commissioner, when authorised by the Corporation in this behalf, may at any time - (i) lay out and make a new public street; (ii) agree with any person for the making of a street for public use through the land of such person, either entirely at the expense of such person or partly at the expense of such person and partly at the expense of the Corporation and that such street shall become, on completion, a public street ; (iii) declare any street made under an improvement scheme duly executed in pursuance of the provision of the City of Bombay Improvement Act, 1898, or the city of Bombay Improvement Trust Transfer Act, 1925, to be a public street." 6. We have noted that the petitioners through their architect made a request to the Municipal Commissioner on 22nd September, 1994 to provide access to their property through adjoining plot of respondent No. 4 under Rule 22(5) of the DC Rules. We have noted that the petitioners through their architect made a request to the Municipal Commissioner on 22nd September, 1994 to provide access to their property through adjoining plot of respondent No. 4 under Rule 22(5) of the DC Rules. It appears that on 22nd October, 1994 and again on 10th February, 1995, the petitioners' property as well as the adjoining property were inspected by the officers of the Municipal Corporation. By letter dated 16th March, 1995, the Chief Engineer (D.P.) of the BMC wrote to the petitioners' architect that the authorities are taking up the matter with the respondent No. 4 who is the owner of the adjoining plot for giving right of way to the petitioners' land-locked property. Thereafter by letter dated 30th March, 1995, the Chief Engineer informed the architect of the respondent No. 4 to give a right of way to the land-locked property bearing City Survey No. 280 of Malabar Hill Division. The Chief Engineer also recorded in the letter that till such time the right of way is given, development permission of the property of the respondent No. 4 would be withheld. 7. It seems that joint meetings thereafter took place between the architects of the petitioners and the respondent No. 4 and the concerned municipal officers. Initially, the respondent No. 4' s architect raised an objection to carving out a way through their property on the ground that it is consulate premises and, therefore, the municipal authorities have no right to direct the respondent No. 4 to give access through their property or to declare any part of the property as a public street under section 291. It seems that the petitioners took up a stand that the respondent No. 4 is not entitled to absolute immunity as the Vienna Convention of 1963 which deals with consular relations makes an exception that expropriation of such property or any part thereof is permissible for the purpose of public utility. It seems that this position was conceded by the architect of the respondent No. 4 in the joint meeting. However, subsequently the respondent No. 4 took up a stance that their property is absolutely inviolable and therefore neither the State Government nor the municipal authorities have any right to claim the right of way through their property. It seems that this position was conceded by the architect of the respondent No. 4 in the joint meeting. However, subsequently the respondent No. 4 took up a stance that their property is absolutely inviolable and therefore neither the State Government nor the municipal authorities have any right to claim the right of way through their property. The municipal authorities appear to have been impressed by the plea of inviolability and decided to issue a commencement certificate to the respondent No. 4 and this has prompted the petitioners to file the present petition under Article 226 claiming various reliefs. 8. In contesting the petition, the Acting Consul General for the Consulate General of the Islamic State of Afghanistan has filed his affidavit in reply. A preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of this Court is raised by maintaining that, under Articles 22 and 31 of the Vienna Convention of 1961, the respondent No. 4 has a diplomatic immunity from the criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving State i.e. Union of India. It is contended that respondent No. 4 is holding the premises for the purpose of the mission i.e. the premises are being used as a consulate office and therefore there is also a diplomatic immunity enjoyed by the respondent No. 4 from the civil and administrative jurisdiction and as well as criminal jurisdiction of the Union of India. Then reliance is placed on Article 22 of Convention of 1961 which provides that the premises of the mission shall be inviolable. It is contended that the State Government and municipal authorities have no power to expropriate or requisition the property of the respondent No. 4. It is further contended that Vienna Convention of 1963 is not applicable to the respondent No. 4 s property and in any event even under the relevant articles of Convention of 1963 the purpose for which the access has been sought cannot be called a public utility and, therefore, exception to the rule of inviolability has no application to the present case. It is contended that the petitioners want access for their own private use and such access can never be treated as for the sake of public utility. It is also suggested that the property is not actually land-locked as there exists an access of five feet through the property of Parsi Tooty Agyari Trust. It is contended that the petitioners want access for their own private use and such access can never be treated as for the sake of public utility. It is also suggested that the property is not actually land-locked as there exists an access of five feet through the property of Parsi Tooty Agyari Trust. It is suggested that the petitioners might be able to get access through the property of Vikas tower which is located on the rear side through their basement car parking. It is contended that if an access is given to the extent of 4.6 metres width, it will automatically reduce the area of the respondent No. 4's property and as a result the respondent No. 4 will not be able to comply with the requirement of minimum open space. It is also pointed out that the BEST had requested an area of 4 x 9 metres for their sub-station. It is, therefore, contended that carving out of access through the property of the respondent No. 4 is likely to severely hamper their proposed construction on the property. Lastly, it is contended that the sole object of the petitioners in filing this petition is to have motorable access to the property because the petitioners are builders and intend to develop the said property and sell flats for an astronomical sum.. 9. The Municipal Corporation has filed two affidavits dated 15th April 1996 and 22nd October 1996. In their affidavit, the Municipal Corporation made it clear that at present the existing tenants of the property are using 5 ft. strip pathway which belongs to the adjoining Parsi Tooty Agyari Trust. It is stated that the said stepped pathway is not a motorable access and cannot be considered as an adequate access under the Development Control Regulations. It is pointed out that the minimum access required under the Development Control Regulations is a six metre access with a view to enable access to fire fighting and emergency vehicles. It is also pointed out that presently there is no motorable access to the property of the petitioners and it would be impossible to carry out any rescue operations in the event of mishap and hence the said property has to be considered as a landlocked property requiring the provision of access under the DC Regulations. It is also pointed out that presently there is no motorable access to the property of the petitioners and it would be impossible to carry out any rescue operations in the event of mishap and hence the said property has to be considered as a landlocked property requiring the provision of access under the DC Regulations. The plot in question of the petitioners is surrounded on all sides by other plots and has no access to any street or road within the meaning of DC Regulation No. 22(5). It is stated that after receiving the application from the petitioner's architect, the property was inspected by the staff of the Municipal Corporation and it was observed that the residents of the plot in question were using five feet stepped pathway and the same cannot be widened since it is abutting the property of Parsi Tooty Agyari Trust. It is stated that after examining the adjoining property it was found that only access that was possible was through the property of the respondent No. 4. It is stated that the Corporation entered into extensive correspondence with the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 to provide access tot the land-locked property of the petitioners under Rule 22(5). However in view of respondent No. 4 raising an objection based on Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention, the Municipal Corporation had been unable to pursue the representation of the petitioners for providing a right of way through the property of the respondent. 10. Dr. Chandrachud, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are duty bound to comply with the provisions contained in DC Rules more particularly Rule 22(5) for making provision of an access to the land-locked property of the petitioners. Dr. Chandrachud submitted that the purpose and object underlying the provisions of DC Rule 22(5) is that the user and enjoyment of the landlocked property should be preserved and ensured to the owners, occupiers and occupants. The object is also to ensure that the absence of access should not become a source of obstruction to the legitimate and proper use and enjoyment of the property in the context of overall development of the city. Dr. Chandrachud pointed out that DC Rules are framed under section 22(m) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and have a statutory character. Dr. Chandrachud pointed out that DC Rules are framed under section 22(m) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and have a statutory character. The obligation conferred on the Municipal Commissioner to provide access to the land-locked property must be fairly exercised to effectuate the purpose behind the entrustment of that obligation. Dr. Chandrachud contended that the action of the respondents No. 2 and 3 in deliberately ignoring the requests of the petitioners and the tenants amounts to total breach of duties imposed on the municipal authorities under the law. This also amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as observing fairness is an essential component of Article 14. Dr. Chandrachud strongly refuted the claim of the respondent No. 4 that they have got absolute immunity under Vienna Convention of 1961. The Counsel urged that Vienna Convention of 1961 deals with Diplomatic Mission and not Consulates. He pointed out that the respondent No. 4 being a Consulate is governed by the Convention of 1963 which deals with consular relations. The Counsel brought to my notice Article 31 of Convention of 1963 in order to show that expropriation of the property of Consulate or any part thereof is permissible provided all steps are taken to avoid impeding the consular functions and prompt, adequate and effective compensation is paid to the sending State. Dr. Chandrachud submitted that public utility is an exception recognised by Article 31 which is more or less akin to a public purpose and considering the fact that access is going to be declared as a public street, case of the petitioner clearly falls under recognised exceptions to the principle of inviolability. Dr. Chandrachud, therefore, prayed that an appropriate writ should be issued against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to provide the access in accordance with the provisions of law. 11. Ms. Savla, learned Counsel for municipal authorities, supported the petitioners. She submitted that the property is land-locked and, therefore, unless an access is provided for the property cannot be developed. She brought to my notice that the structure standing on petitioners' property is very old and in dilapidated condition. She submitted that the Commissioner has a right to declare the street as a public street and in doing so he is not violating the provisions of the 1963 Convention. She brought to my notice that the structure standing on petitioners' property is very old and in dilapidated condition. She submitted that the Commissioner has a right to declare the street as a public street and in doing so he is not violating the provisions of the 1963 Convention. She also pointed out that the respondent No. 4 has submitted plans for development of the property. While sanctioning the plans, it is open for the municipal authorities to lay down conditions including a condition to provide access to the adjoining property particularly when the property is a land-locked property. Ms. Savla submitted that the municipal authorities are within their right in asking the Consulate to surrender a portion of the property for providing access to the property of the petitioners. She also brought to my notice various provisions of the DC Rules and guidelines which provide for payment of compensation and also for exemption from keeping compulsory open space where the part of the property is required to be surrendered in providing access to the neighbouring land-locked property. Mr. Adik appearing for intervenors-tenants also supported the petitioners. Mr. Adik submitted that besides the temporary 5 feet access no other access is available to the occupants of Dani Chawl and this is causing great hardship and inconvenience to them. Since last several years the residents of Dani Chawl have been making representations to various authorities for the purpose of obtaining a proper access to the property. The Counsel said that in case of any mishap on account of fire or collapse of the chawl which is nearly 100 years old, there would be no way to rescue any occupant. It is, therefore, imperative that access should be made available to their property. 12. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 who is practically the only contesting respondent, raised mainly three submissions. Firstly, Mr. Dharmadhikari contended that the property of the petitioners is not a landlocked property as it is admittedly having a 5 ft. access through the adjoining property belonging to Parsi Tooty Agyari Trust. Secondly, Mr. Dharmadhikari contended that the Afghanistan Consulate in Mumbai is also discharging diplomatic functions and, therefore, by the extended meaning of the diplomatic premises as provided in clause (i) of Article 1 of the Convention of 1961 the premises of the respondent No. 4 are absolutely inviolable accepting no exception any ground. Secondly, Mr. Dharmadhikari contended that the Afghanistan Consulate in Mumbai is also discharging diplomatic functions and, therefore, by the extended meaning of the diplomatic premises as provided in clause (i) of Article 1 of the Convention of 1961 the premises of the respondent No. 4 are absolutely inviolable accepting no exception any ground. Thirdly, Mr. Dharmadhikari contended that assuming that the office of the respondent No. 4 is a Consulate Office and not Diplomatic Mission, it is still inviolable under the provisions of Article 31 of the 1963 Convention relating to Consular Relations which recognises only two exceptions viz. defence and public utility and since providing an access to private property cannot be treated as a public utility, neither the State Government nor the municipal authorities have any right to provide access to the petitioners' property from out of the property of the respondent No. 4 The Counsel, therefore, contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. The first submission of Dharmadhikari is required to be stated only to be rejected. It is an admitted position that there is no access to the property excepting 5 ft. pathway through the property of Parsi Tooty Agyari Trust which is situate on the eastern side of the petitioners' property. This pathway consists of naturally carved steps and naturally, therefore, is not a motorable access. On the rear side is the property of Om Vikas Tower. In the affidavit of the respondent No. 4 it was suggested that the petitioners can have access through the property of Om Vikas Tower, but at the bar Mr. Dharmadhikari conceded that this suggestion is not practicable as the property of Om Vikas Tower is fully developed and in order to have an access through that property one would have to go down six storeys to the basement, then channel out a tunnel to the petitioners property and then come up a few storeys to reach the plot. Thus, there is no access on the rear side. The Municipal Corporation in its affidavit clearly stated that the present access of 5 ft. cannot be regarded as an access at all. It is rightly, pointed out that in cases of emergency, the inmates of the building of the petitioners property will be without any facility like fire fighting and emergency vehicles. The Municipal Corporation in its affidavit clearly stated that the present access of 5 ft. cannot be regarded as an access at all. It is rightly, pointed out that in cases of emergency, the inmates of the building of the petitioners property will be without any facility like fire fighting and emergency vehicles. But that apart, the question whether any property is a land-locked property is essentially a question to be decided by the municipal authorities. This cannot be gone into writ jurisdiction under Article 226. I have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting the submission of the petitioners that this property is a land-locked property and needs a proper access. At this stage, I may also deal with a contention raised in the affidavit in reply of the respondent No. 4 that if access is given through their property, it will not be possible for the respondent No. 4 to construct a new building as per the plans submitted to the Municipal Corporation. Under the guidelines of January, 1996, it has been clearly provided that when the owner of the property is required to surrender land for the purpose of providing access to the adjoining property, he will be exempted from the requirement of minimum open space. In view of this, the apprehension expressed by the respondent No. 4 that grant of access through their property would hamper their plans of constructing, a new building is without any foundation. 14. Turning then to the submission of Mr. Dharmadhikari based on the immunity conferred by the Vienna Convention, it will be necessary to examine the provision of the Convention. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations was accepted at Vienna on 18th April, 1961. It came into force on 24th April, 1961 in accordance with Article 51 of the Convention. Both India and Afghanistan have ratified and acceded to the Convention of 1961. Clause (i) of Article 1 defines the "premises of the mission" to mean the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission. Both India and Afghanistan have ratified and acceded to the Convention of 1961. Clause (i) of Article 1 defines the "premises of the mission" to mean the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purposes of the mission including the residence of the head of the mission. Article 3 days down the functions of diplomatic mission as follows :- "(a) representing the sending State in the receiving State; (b) protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law; (c) negotiating with the Government of the receiving State; (d) ascertaining by all lawful means, conditions and developments in the receiving State and reporting thereon to the Government of the sending State." Article 4 then provides that the sending State must make certain that the agreement of the receiving State has been given for the person it proposes to accredit as head of the mission to that State. Article 14 classifies heads of mission into three classes namely (a) that of ambassadors or nuncio accredited to Heads of State, and other Heads of Mission of equivalent rank, (b) that of envoys, ministers and internuncios accredited to Heads of State, (c) that of charges of d'affairs accredited to Ministers for Foreign Affairs. 15. Article 22 of 1961 Convention recognises absolute inviolability of the mission premises and reads as follows :- 1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. 2. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to prevent the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damages and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. 3. The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution." 16. There is a separate Convention on consular relations which was accepted on 24th April 1963 at Vienna. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations came into force on 19th March 1967 in accordance with Article 77. The preamble of the Convention clearly makes a distinction between "diplomatic relations" and "consular relations". There is a separate Convention on consular relations which was accepted on 24th April 1963 at Vienna. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations came into force on 19th March 1967 in accordance with Article 77. The preamble of the Convention clearly makes a distinction between "diplomatic relations" and "consular relations". It recalls that Consular relations have been established between peoples since ancient times. It refers to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. It further proceeds to state that an international convention on consular relations, privileges and immunities would also contribute to the developments of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems. Article 5 of the Convention deals with consular functions. Some of the consular functions are overlapping with diplomatic functions under Article 3 of the 1961 Convention. However, there is one important distinction. Under Article 3 of the 1961 Convention only the diplomatic mission has right to represent the sending State in the receiving State and negotiate with the Government of the receiving State. These are sovereign functions which can be performed only by the diplomatic mission and not by the consulate. A consulate office mainly discharges other ancillary consular functions like issuing of passports, visas, trade activities and other activities like safeguarding nationals, individuals, bodies and corporates of the sending State ascertaining conditions and developments in the commercial, economic, cultural and scientific life of the receiving State. Merely because some of the functions of a diplomatic mission are also carried by consulate, it cannot get the status of a diplomatic mission. Article 9 defines classes of heads of consular posts as (a) consuls-general, (b) consuls, (c) vice-consuls and (d) consular agents. Under Article 10 heads of consular posts are appointed by the sending State and are admitted to the exercise of their functions by the receiving State. However there is no accredition given to the consular posts as in the case of Heads of the mission. 17. Article 31 deals with inviolability of the consular premises. Both the sides have advanced extensive arguments on the interpretation of this article and hence it will be useful to reproduce the same :- 1. Consulate premises shall be inviolable to the extent provided in this Article. 2. 17. Article 31 deals with inviolability of the consular premises. Both the sides have advanced extensive arguments on the interpretation of this article and hence it will be useful to reproduce the same :- 1. Consulate premises shall be inviolable to the extent provided in this Article. 2. The authority of the receiving State shall not enter that part of the consular premises which is used exclusively for the purpose of the work of the consular post except with the consent of the head of the consular post or of this designee or the head of the diplomatic mission of the sending State. The consent of the head of the consular post may, however, be assumed in case of fire or other disaster requiring prompt protective action. 3. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of the Article, the receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the consular premises against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the consular post or impairment of its dignity. 4. The consular premises, their furnishings, the property of the consular post and its means of transport shall be immune from any form of requisition for purpose of national defence or public utility. If expropriation is necessary for such purposes, all possible steps shall be taken to avoid impeding the performance of consular functions and prompt, adequate and effective compensation shall be paid to the sending State." (emphasis supplied) 18. The Vienna Convention of 963 was ratified by India on 28th November 1977. However, Afghanistan is not a signatory is to this Convention. Even prior to ratifying the said Convention, the Protocol Handbook of the Government of India provided a summary of privileges and immunities of diplomatic mission, consular corps etc. wherein it was provided that foreign consular posts would be granted such immunities as are granted under International Law and the Government of India would be generally guided by the provisions of the Vienna Convention, 1963. There is hardly any dispute that the premises of the respondent No. 4 in Bombay are Consular premises and not Diplomatic Mission. Afghanistan has got a diplomatic mission in Delhi. A Diplomatic Mission is required to function from the headquarters of the receiving State, in India at New Delhi. There is hardly any dispute that the premises of the respondent No. 4 in Bombay are Consular premises and not Diplomatic Mission. Afghanistan has got a diplomatic mission in Delhi. A Diplomatic Mission is required to function from the headquarters of the receiving State, in India at New Delhi. This is evident from the circulars dated 4th August 1953 and 18th February 1954 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. The circulars dated 11th November 1954 and 21st October 1957 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs request all Diplomatic Missions to intimate to the Ministry of External Affairs in the event of the Heads of Mission seeking to visit any place outside New Delhi. But that apart, the affidavit of the respondent No. 4 is made by Abdul Wadood Ahadzad Acting Consul General for the Consulate General of the Islamic State of Afghanistan having their office at 115, Walkeshwar Road, Bombay - 6. This itself confirms that the respondent No. 4' s property at Walkeshwar is a Consulate property and not the property of a Diplomatic Mission. Mr. Dharmadhikari's argument that the Consulate at Bombay does perform certain functions of a Diplomatic Mission like issuing of passports and visas and, therefore, the Consulate office should be treated as a Diplomatic Mission is contrary to the established practice in the International Law. The Consulate at Bombay performing some common functions cannot acquire the status of a Diplomatic Mission. Therefore while examining the plea of inviolability immunity we have to consider the provisions contained in the 1963 Convention relating to Consular Relations and not the 1961 Convention which deals with the Diplomatic Relations. 19. It is undoubtedly true that under Article 31 of the Convention relating to Consular Relations, the Consular premises are inviolable. But there is a marked difference. The inviolability conferred by Article 31 is not absolute immunity as the Clause 1 of Article 31 makes it clear that the Consular premises shall be inviolable to the extent provided in that Article. Under Clause 4 the consular premises, their furnishings, the property of the consular-post and its means of transport are made immune from any form of requisition for the purpose of national defence or public utility. Under Clause 4 the consular premises, their furnishings, the property of the consular-post and its means of transport are made immune from any form of requisition for the purpose of national defence or public utility. But the same clause further provides that if expropriation is necessary for such purposes, all possible steps shall be taken to avoid impeding the performance of consular functions and prompt, adequate and effective compensation shall be paid to the sending State. We are not concerned with the exception based on national defence, but the question which requires determination is whether the acquisition of the property for the purposes of providing an access to the land-locked property and declaring such access as a public street can be said to be a public utility. 20. Mr. Dharmadhikari strenuously urged the words "public utility" denotes a business or service which is engaged in regularly supplying the public with some commodity or service such as electricity, gas, water, transportation, telephone or telegraph service. The Counsel took me through the scheme underlying the DC Rules in order to show that the object of introducing Rule 22(5) is essentially to enable property owners to develop property. The Counsel urged that such purpose cannot fall within the parameters of a public utility. He pointed out that even though the Commissioner has powers to declare the access as a public street, such a facility is essentially meant for a handful of persons who are occupying the building. Mr. Dharmadhikari urged that if such broad meaning is given to the words "public utility", it will defeat the very object of granting immunity to the premises of the Consulate. Dr. Chandrachud on the other hand submitted that the Court should not give such a narrow meaning to the words "public utility". He submitted that a straight jacket formula cannot be applied to the words "public utility" appearing in Article 22. The object behind making an exception to the rule of inviolability is that such immunity should not hamper the power of the State to acquire property for public purposes. Dr. Chandrachud submitted that the Municipal Corporation is essentially a statutory body established under the Act for conferring public services to the people. The Corporation is also a planning authority under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. It is concerned with planned growth of the city. Dr. Chandrachud submitted that the Municipal Corporation is essentially a statutory body established under the Act for conferring public services to the people. The Corporation is also a planning authority under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. It is concerned with planned growth of the city. Therefore, it has got a statutory obligation to implement DC Rules which are framed under section 22(m). While acting in exercise of such power, the Municipal authorities are guided by public use and service with public in mind. Therefore, according to the Counsel, when the Municipal Commissioner decides to declare a part of the property of the Consulate as a public street, it amounts to expropriation or acquisition of the property for the purpose of public utility. 21. At the outset, it is necessary to state that there is no definition of "public utility" in the context of any Indian statute that may be relevant for the present purpose. There is a definition of "public utility" in section 2(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which inter alia covers "any industry which supplies power, light or water to the public" and certain other industries. But the definition is of no assistance to ascertain the meaning of "public utility" appearing in the Convention. Literally the word "utility" means usefulness, but it is often used to refer to a corporation that performs a public service and so is a public utility. Hence rail roads, airlines, buslines, gas and electricity corporations are known as public utilities. Webster defines a public utility as a business organisation performing some public service and, hence subject to special governmental regulation such as fixing of rates and requirements of incidental facilities. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines "public utility" as the services or supplies commonly available in large towns such as omnibuses, electricity water etc. 22. "Public utility" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) as - "A privately owned and operated business whose services are so essential to the general public as to justify the grant of special franchise for the use of public property or of the right of eminent domain, in consideration of which the owners must serve all persons who apply without discrimination. It is always a virtual monopoly. It is always a virtual monopoly. A business or service which is engaged in regularly supplying the public with some commodity or service which is of public consequence and need such as electricity, gas, water, transportation or telephone or telegraph service. (Gulf States Utilities Co. v. State Tex)1, Civ. App. 46. S.W. 2d. 1018. 1021. Any agency, instrumentality, business, industry or service which is used or conducted in such manner as to affect the community at large, that is, which is not limited or restricted to any particular class of the community. The test for determining if a concern is a public utility is whether it has held itself out as ready, able and willing to serve the public. The term implies a public use of an article, product, or service, carrying with it the duty of the producer or manufacturer one attempting to furnish the service, to serve the public and treat all person alike, without discrimination. It is synonymous with "public use" and refers to person or corporations charged with the duty to supply the public with the use of property or facilities owned or furnished by them. (Buder v. First, Nat. Bank)2, in St. Louis C.C.A. Mo. 16F. 2d 990, 992. To constitute a true "public utility" the devotion to public use must be of such character that the public generally or that part of it, which has been served and which has accepted the service, has the legal right to demand that service shall be conducted so long as it is continued with reasonable efficiency under reasonable charges. The devotion to public use must be of such character that the product and service is available to the public generally and indiscriminately, or there must be the acceptance by the utility of public franchise or ceiling to its aid the police power of the State." 23. It is true that the words "public utilities" are used in the context of services such as electricity, gas, water, transportation etc. But it is well settled that public utilities also mean public purpose depending upon the context in which it is used in a statute, rules or regulations. It is true that the words "public utilities" are used in the context of services such as electricity, gas, water, transportation etc. But it is well settled that public utilities also mean public purpose depending upon the context in which it is used in a statute, rules or regulations. This legal position can be seen from a passage from Corpus Juris Secundum Volume 73 page 990 :- "A "public utility" has been described as a business organisation which regularly supplies the public with some commodity or service, such as electricity, gas water, transportation or telephone or telegraph service. While the term has not been exactly defined, and, as has been said, it would be difficult to construct a definition that would fit every conceivable case, the distinguishing characteristic of a public utility is the devotion of private property by the owner or person in control thereof to such a use that the public generally, or that part of the public which has been served and has accepted the service, has the right to demand that the use or service, as long as it is continued shall be conducted with reasonable efficiency and under proper charges. The term is sometimes used in an extended sense to include a great many matters of general welfare to the State and its communities." (emphasis supplied) A reference may also be made to Volume IV of Stroud's Judicial Dictionary Fifth Edition wherein "public utility" has been defined as follows :- "A bequest for undertakings of "public utility" is void unless made definite by being confined to a specified locality per Lord Divety, (Hunter v. A.G.)3, 1909 A.C. 323 (Langham v. Peterson)4, 61 J.P. 75 see further GENERAL UTILITY, it is very similar to one for a public purpose. But, on the other hand, Kekewich, J., held that a gift for "such public utilities and institutions or for such charitable purposes for the public advantage or benefit" as the trustees should think worthy, was good..." 24. Coming to the Indian scene, there are two judgments of the Supreme Court where the observations of the Supreme Court indicate that a public utility in the sense of a purpose is almost synonymous to a public purpose. Coming to the Indian scene, there are two judgments of the Supreme Court where the observations of the Supreme Court indicate that a public utility in the sense of a purpose is almost synonymous to a public purpose. In (Babu Bankya Thakur v. State of Bombay)5, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1203, the Supreme Court was considering the question of validity of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act dealing with acquisition of land for companies. The Supreme Court held that acquisition of land for company under the Land Acquisition Act is for a public purpose. In para 10, the Supreme Court after examining the provisions of Article 31 (2) of the Constitution observed that these requirements indicate that the acquisition for a Company also is in substance for a public purpose inasmuch as it cannot be seriously contended that constructing dwelling houses and providing amenities for the benefit of the workmen employed by it and construction of some work of public utility, do not serve a public purpose. In the same paragraph the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in the case of (State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji )6, (1955)1 S.C.R. 777 S. where it was held that providing housing accommodation to the homeless is a public purpose. The view taken by the Supreme Court was reiterated by the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 343 (Pandit Jhandu Lal v. The State of Punjab)7. 25. The words "public utility" are not capable of giving a precise meaning. The question whether a service is a public utility or not, will have to be decided in the context of different situations as far as the facts in the instant case are concerned, it cannot be denied that the Municipal Corporation is a statutory body which undertakes to provide services to the public at large. Under the provisions of the MRTP Act it also functions as a Planning Authority. One of the functions of the Corporation is to provide streets in the Municipal area. Section 291 confers powers on the Municipal Corporation to declare any road as a public street. Upon such declaration, the property vests in the Municipal Corporation and such road is open for the use of the General public. One of the functions of the Corporation is to provide streets in the Municipal area. Section 291 confers powers on the Municipal Corporation to declare any road as a public street. Upon such declaration, the property vests in the Municipal Corporation and such road is open for the use of the General public. Rule 22(5) also confers power on the Municipal Commissioner to require the owner of the adjoining plot to surrender a part of his property for the purpose of access to the land-locked property. Therefore in the larger sense the action of the Municipal Commissioner is referable to a public utility. Under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention relating to consular relations expropriation of the consulate property is permissible for public utility provided all possible steps are taken to avoid impeding the performance of consular functions and prompt, adequate and effective compensation is paid to the sending State. We have already seen that under Rule 22(5) read with the circular of 18th January 1996 and section 291 of the BMC Act, the owner of the property is entitled to compensation. Further he is entitled to proportionate reduction in compulsory open space. Consequently, the question of impeding the consular functions does not arise. Therefore, the defence of the respondent No. 4 based on Article 31 of the Convention of 1963 is liable to be rejected. 26. Lastly, the argument of Mr. Dharmadhikari that such a public street will be essentially for the purpose of occupants of the petitioners' property cannot be accepted. It has been laid down by the Courts in India that an acquisition can be for a public purpose even though all the members of public do not take benefit but only a section of it take the benefit. Public purpose in acquisition may be served even though acquisition is for the benefit of particular members of the public provided the object of acquisition is a public purpose vide (Kamalamma v. State)8, A.I.R. 1960 Kerala 321 and (N. Vijapuri Naidu v. The New Theatres Carnatic Talkies Ltd.)9, A.I.R. 1960 Madras 108. Even though these decisions are under the Land Acquisition Act the principle underlying the same will be clearly applicable. 27. The next question is whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal authorities to exercise their powers under Rule 22(5) read with section 291 of the BMC Act. Even though these decisions are under the Land Acquisition Act the principle underlying the same will be clearly applicable. 27. The next question is whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal authorities to exercise their powers under Rule 22(5) read with section 291 of the BMC Act. Under these provisions discretionary power is given to the Municipal Commissioner to provide an access to the land-locked property and if necessary to declare such access as a public street. Whether to exercise this power is a question within the sole discretion of the Municipal Commissioner. It is well settled that where the statute vests a discretionary power upon an administrative authority, the Court should not interfere with the exercise of such discretion unless it is made with the oblique motives or extraneous purposes or upon extraneous consideration see (M/s. Chingleput Bottlers v. M/s. Majestic Bottling Co.)10, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1030 and (State of M.P. v. Nandlal)11, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 251. Therefore, the petitioners' prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus cannot be granted for it is for the Commissioner to decide whether it is a fit case for exercising power under Rule 22(5) read with section 291 of the BMC Act. Needless to mention that neither the Vienna Convention relating to diplomatic mission 1961 nor the Vienna Convention relating to consular relations 1963 create any impediment in exercise of the power of the Commissioner under rule 22(5) of the DC Rules read with section 291 of the BMC Act. The Municipal Commissioner is directed to decide the petitioners' application for access within two months in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. On the oral request made by Mr. Dharmadhikari, operation of this judgment is stayed for a period of four weeks. Petition allowed