JUDGMENT Vinod Kumar Gupta, J. 1. A very short point is involved for consideration in this case. 2. The petitioners have submitted a building plan for sanction by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The petitioners say that despite the plan having been submitted for sanction as far back as in the year 1993, the Calcutta Municipal Corporation has not granted its approval. The only objection raised in the affidavit-in-opposition, which was also urged at the time of hearing, was that the building plan as submitted by the petitioners suffered from the non-compliance with the requirement of keeping open space as prescribed under Rule 58 of the Building Rules, 1990 In fact, it is submitted that the petitioners were informed way back in the year 1995 that since the building does not have a provision for an open space, as was required under Rule 58, the plan could not be sanctioned. 3. In the affidavit-in-reply the petitioners have refuted the aforesaid objection taken on behalf of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and have submitted that the requirement relating to open space as contained in Rule 58 Wits dispensed with and relaxed by the Municipal Commissioner in terms of Rule 58 and that the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition have concealed this factual aspect. In order to resolve this controversy, the respondents were directed to produce the Original record for perusal of the Court. I have seen the original record produced by the learned advocate for the respondents and found that the file regarding the grant of relaxation from the observance of Rule 58 with regard to the provision of open space was submitted to the Municipal Commissioner of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in due course. In fact, the relevant noting starts on 28.12.93 when the City Architect after observing that the height of the existing building in the front was 6.30 Mts. from the ground level and as the buildings on North, West and South and the adjoining premises are within 14.5 Mts. the requirement under Rule 58 may be relaxed. This recommendation of the City Architect made on 28.12.93 after having been routed through various channels was ultimately put up before the Municipal Commissioner, who vide his order dated 8.3.94 has recorded In tile original file observed as under:- "May be relaxed." 4. the requirement under Rule 58 may be relaxed. This recommendation of the City Architect made on 28.12.93 after having been routed through various channels was ultimately put up before the Municipal Commissioner, who vide his order dated 8.3.94 has recorded In tile original file observed as under:- "May be relaxed." 4. The factual aspect which thus emerges from a perusal of the original file is that the Municipal Commissioner of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation in fact ordered the relaxation In so far as the observance of the Rule 58 was concerned relating to the provision for open space. The learned Advocate for the respondents has also very fairly conceded to this factual aspect and has submitted that the Municipal Commissioner, in fact granted relaxation. The argument, however, is that the Municipal Commissioner either was not competent to grant relaxation himself or, if he granted relaxation initially, the same was subject to confirmation and approval of the Building Committee and the Mayor-in-Council as per the requirements contain in Section 391 read with Section 396 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. I was taken through both these provisions in support of the aforesaid argument. It was very vehemently urged on behalf of the respondents that every action of the Municipal Commissioner is subject to confirmation by the Building Committee and the Mayor-in-Council and that every aspect relating to the sanction of a building plan has to be examined by the Building Committee and the Mayor-in-Council and that the Municipal Commissioner has no power or authority to deal with any such matter on his own. 5. Rule 58 of the Building Rules, 1990 reads as under:- "58. Joint open space-Subject to the provisions of Rules 56 and 57, the joint open space in between two buildings belonging to the same owner or not, shall not be less than 7 metres, if one of such building exceeds 14 metres and 50 centimetres in height. Provided that the provisions of this rule may be relaxed by the Municipal Commissioner in a case where one of such building is less than 14 metres and 50 centimetres in height." 6. Building Rules, 1990 have been framed by the Government of West Bengal in exercise of the power vesting in it under Section 404 read with Section 600 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Building Rules, 1990 have been framed by the Government of West Bengal in exercise of the power vesting in it under Section 404 read with Section 600 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. In so far as Section 600 is concerned, it is a general provision which grants the power to the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Section 404, however, specifically defines the powers of the State Government and prescribes various steps and matters under which the Rules can be framed by the State Government. In sub-section (2) it is clearly provided that without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by sub-section (1), the rules framed thereunder may provide for any of the matters mentioned therein. Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 404 deals with the subject of open spaces, area and height limitations. Once, therefore, the Legislature, in its wisdom decide to frame a rule under Section 404(2) (f) of the Act by prescribing the requirements of keeping open space between the two buildings and once it is decided in the same rule to prescribe a particular authority as the one competent to grant relaxation from the rigors of this Rule, it cannot be said that any other authority or functionary under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, be it the Building Committee or the Mayor-in-Council had the power or authority to either review the decision of the Municipal Commissioner or to sit over the judgment with regard to the same. Municipal Commissioner of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation is a statutory authority prescribed in Rule 58 as being competent to grant relaxation from the operation of this rule. Unless in the Act or in the Rules themselves it is specifically provided that the decision taken by the Commissioner is subject to confirmation or approval by any other authority or agency or that the Municipal Commissioner is required to obtain the prior approval of some authority before taking such decision, the unambiguous language used in Rule 58 has to be given its plain meaning, which clearly says that be alone is the competent person to grant relaxation. It is it well settled principle of law that a statutory authority, if prescribed under a statute and if competent to take a decision all by himself, upon consideration of the matter in question, he alone has to take such a decision and in doing so, he cannot be influenced by any other authority. The statutory authority, if it is competent to take a decision, is obliged to consider all the relevant aspects of the matter and to decide the matter upon due application of mind and in accordance with the merits of the case. 7. Viewed thus, the argument of the learned Advocate for the respondents that the decision by the Municipal Commissioner was subject to approval or confirmation by the Building Committee or that despite such decision the Building Committee could have itself independently also taken a decision about the observance or relaxation of Rule 58 is without any merit. 8. For what has been stated above, I have no hesitation in holding that once the Municipal Commissioner in the exercise of his statutory power under Rule 58 decided to relax the requirement for the provision of the open space, it was not open to any ether authority to change that decision and to insist upon the observance of Rule 58. That having been said, the only objection with regard to the building plan being based on non-compliance of Rule 58, it leaves little choice with the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to grant approval to the building plan submitted by the petitioners. However, the fact still remains that the Calcutta Municipal Corporation has to consider the question about the grant of approval in accordance with the legal previsions and in the light of the observation made hereinabove and if it comes to a conclusion that the building plan does not suffer any other non-observance of the statutory requirement, it has no option but to communicate the approval to the petitioners. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed. The respondents, in the light of the observations made above, are directed to finally consider the question relating to the approval of the building plan submitted by the petitioners and if found to be in accordance with law, rules and regulations, to communicate its approval to the petitioners within 6 weeks from today. 10. The respondents, in the light of the observations made above, are directed to finally consider the question relating to the approval of the building plan submitted by the petitioners and if found to be in accordance with law, rules and regulations, to communicate its approval to the petitioners within 6 weeks from today. 10. It is also directed that if the Calcutta Municipal Corporation is liable to make any refund of any amount to the petitioners which it may have deposited, it may do so upon the petitioners making an application for this purpose. 11. All the consequences shall follow. There will be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.