JUDGMENT Vidya Nand, J. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 6th August, 1996 passed in writ petition No. 2561 of 1994 (M/s. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. & Another vs. State of West Bengal & Others) dismissing the Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give any effect or further effect to proceed any further with the impugned notice being No. 519/C. March/94-95 dated 16th September 1994 issued by the Chief Architect, Howrah Municipal Corporation as per Annexure 'V' in the writ petition and other consequential reliefs. 2. Petitioner No. 1 M/s. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. is the owner of a land measuring about 30 Bighas, 13 kathas, 3 chhittack and 9 sq. ft. of land situated at Mouza Baje Shibpur, in the District of Howrah. The said company wanted to develop the said land by construction of a building complex for the middle class people along with school, park, Nursing Home, shopping complex and other necessary civic amenities. On 6th July, 1992 the petitioners submitted a plan upto 7th floor level for sanction along with all requisite documents including 'No dues Certificate' obtained from the Howrah Municipal Corporation on June 9, 1992. No objection certificate from West Bengal Fire Service, Soil Test Certificate of National Test House dated 16th January, 1992. No objection Certificate obtained from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority under section 22 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and obtained money receipt issued by Howrah Municipality on 6th July, 1992 showing the deposit of Plan submission fees. Thus, the petitioners duly submitted Notice for the sanction of the Plan for the proposed Multi-storied Building which the Municipal authority duly received. The Asst. Engineer, Building Department, Howrah Municipal Corporation issued a letter dated 21.7.1992 asking the petitioner to appear before Sr. S. Chakraborty (E.O.) within 15 days for joint inspection at 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. and in compliance with the said letter the petitioner met with the person concerned and the joint inspection was accordingly made. 3. The authority informed the petitioners that the result of the inspection and the sanction of the plan would be intimated later on. 4. S. Chakraborty (E.O.) within 15 days for joint inspection at 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. and in compliance with the said letter the petitioner met with the person concerned and the joint inspection was accordingly made. 3. The authority informed the petitioners that the result of the inspection and the sanction of the plan would be intimated later on. 4. From this stage begins the delaying tactics of the Howrah Municipal Corporation which ultimately resulted in refusal of the sanction of the plan of 5th to 7th floor of the petitioners by asking the petitioners to provide information, to the Howrah Municipal Corporation in piece-meal manner. The Law Officer of Howrah Municipal Corporation issued a Memo being No. LW-60 dated 20th August, 1992 whereby petitioner No. 2 was informed to contact with the Law Officer of the Howrah Municipal Corporation with the deed and all other documents on 4th September, 1992, between 2 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. After being satisfied with the ownership of the land by the petitioner the Chief Architect, Howrah, Municipal Corporation directed the petitioner by his letter dated 20th October, 1992 to submit fire approval as early as possible so that the plan for the multistoried building complex could be sanctioned as quickly as possible. The petitioner after obtaining the said certificate of Fire Service submitted it to the Chief Architect Engineer, Howrah Municipal Corporation, vide letter dated 8th February, 1993. Even then the Howrah Municipal Corporation did not sanction the Plan as submitted by the petitioners and as such the petitioners filed an application against the said in-action or non-action of the Respondent Howrah Municipal Corporation. Justice Altamas Kabir heard the writ application on 26th April, 1993 and gave some more time to the Corporation to consider and dispose of the said plan submitted on 6th April, 1992 for grant of sanction on the prayer of the Corporation. The said order was communicated to the Municipal authorities on 26th April, 1993. 5. The Chief Architect, Howrah Municipal Corporation for causing delay again asked the petitioners to submit a declaration that they would follow every recommendation of the West Bengal Fire Service vide Memo No. WBFS/549/Howrah 3/92 dated 1st February, 1993 during the course of Constitution. The said order was communicated to the Municipal authorities on 26th April, 1993. 5. The Chief Architect, Howrah Municipal Corporation for causing delay again asked the petitioners to submit a declaration that they would follow every recommendation of the West Bengal Fire Service vide Memo No. WBFS/549/Howrah 3/92 dated 1st February, 1993 during the course of Constitution. The petitioners received the said letter on April 28, 1993 and gave a declaration on May 10, 1993 in favour of Chief Architect, Howrah Municipal Corporation and undertook to obey all the recommendation of the West Bengal Fire Service in course of construction of the said building. 6. The Municipal authority in terms of the order dated 28th April, 1993 of Justice Altamas Kabir asked the petitioner to appear before them on May 11, 1993 for consideration of the application for grant of sanction of the building plan submitted on 6th July, 1992. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted during the course of hearing that all the documents have been submitted. The same was recorded in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 11th May, 1993. The minutes was produced before Justice Altamas Kabir as per the direction of His Lordship and His Lordship was pleased to record the same and was also pleased to extend the time to consider the application for sanction of the proposed multistoried building at 106, Kiran Singh Road, Howrah for a period of three weeks from May, 1993 and was also pleased to give liberty to the petitioners to deal with the letter dated 15th May, 1993 in any manner they choose and accordingly the petitioners on June 10, 1993 replied the aforesaid letter and elaborately verified the documents asked for vide letter dated 15th May, 1993 and also made very clear to the authorities, that the documents as asked for were either submitted to them or the same was not relevant for the purpose of sanction of the Building Plan as per Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1991. 7. Again the Authority of the Howrah Municipal Corporation made delay in sanctioning the plan and as such the petitioners filed another application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Court on June 25, 1993 and the matter was adjourned to June 30, 1993 for hearing. 7. Again the Authority of the Howrah Municipal Corporation made delay in sanctioning the plan and as such the petitioners filed another application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Court on June 25, 1993 and the matter was adjourned to June 30, 1993 for hearing. Immediately after filing the said application by the petitioners the Municipal authorities vide letter No. 140/C Arch/93/94 dated 18th June, 1993 informed the petitioners that as the petitioners did not submit the corrected copies of the calculation sheet and building plan for showing the corrected FAR as discussed on 11th May, 1993 and copies of the proposed plan without any tampering, overwriting or penmark, it was not possible for the Municipality to sanction the Plan. The Municipality also informed in pursuant to a note submitted by the Chief Engineer, Howrah Municipal Corporation regarding construction of multistoried Building in certain wards of Howrah Municipal Corporation, the Members, Mayor-in-Council took a decision in their meeting dated 11th June, 1993 that in high density zone of Ward Nos. 12 to 16, 29 to 31 and 33 to 40 no further vertical development above G+2 will be allowed in the public interest. After receiving the aforesaid communication the petitioners filed supplementary affidavit incorporating the said decision as well as challenging the correctness of the said decision. The Respondents were directed to file their affidavit-in-opposition within 4 weeks. The said application was duly heard and disposed of His Lordship with the following direction :- "It appears that sanction of Building Plans within Howrah Municipal area is permissible upto Ground plus 4th Floor level and as contended on behalf of petitioners even upto 7th floor level. This submission made on behalf of the petitioners is not disputed on behalf of the Howrah Municipal Corporation. Having regard to the above, I dispose of the application by directing the Howrah Municipal Corporation to grant sanction to the petitioners plan submitted on 6th July 1992 upto 4th floor level, if all the requirements are duly complied with by the writ-petitioners. Such sanction must be given by the Howrah Municipal Corporation within one month from the date of communication of this order. The Howrah Municipal is directed to notify the petitioners the necessary sanctioning fees and the same is to be deposited by the petitioners upon being so notified. Such sanction must be given by the Howrah Municipal Corporation within one month from the date of communication of this order. The Howrah Municipal is directed to notify the petitioners the necessary sanctioning fees and the same is to be deposited by the petitioners upon being so notified. This order will not prevent the petitioners from applying for further sanction if the same is at all permissible at a later date. The application is, thus, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs." 8. The petitioners went to the office of the Howrah Municipal Corporation on 27th May, 1994 along with the particulars as required in terms of rule 4(1) of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1991 along with the plan of the building for the 5th, 6th and 7th plan as the Corporation had sanctioned earlier the plan upto the 4th floor level but the Respondent authorities did not accept the plan of the building for the 5th, 6th and 7th floor by showing the resolution of the Howrah Municipal Corporation dated 11th June 1993 though they accepted the covering letter for the building plan dated 27th May, 1994. The petitioners, therefore, moved another application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was heard by Justice Satyabrata Sinha on 24th June, 1994 and His Lordship directed the Howrah Municipal Corporation to accept the plan and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and also directed that the Howrah Municipal Corporation shall pass appropriate Order within 4 weeks from the date of submission of the plan and receipt of the copy of the Order. 9. The petitioners communicated the said order and also sent the plan as per direction of the Hon'ble Justice Satyabrata Sinha but the Respondent authorities only accepted the copy of the order and the forwarding letter but did not accept the plan for the 5th, 6th 7th floor level and as such a notice was served by the learned Advocate of the petitioners upon the Municipal authorities as well the Chief Architect, Howrah Municipal Corporation requesting them to accept the plan in terms of the Order of Justice Satyabrata Sinha, failing which an application for Contempt will be moved against the Chief Architect and other Municipal authorities after the expiry of 15th days from the date of the notice. Upon receipt of the said letter the Chief Architect vide his letter dated 28th July, 1994 asked the petitioners to submit the plan indicating that no such plan as per direction of Justice Satyabrata Sinha was submitted earlier. The petitioners submitted the xerox copies of the documents and the plan on 11th August, 1994 and deposited Rs. 500/- on account of plan submission Fees. 10. The Chief Architect informed the petitioners by his letter indicating that during scrutiny of the proposal it was found that the proposal is not agreeable as per amendment of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1991 under section 20(3) published in the Calcutta Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 15th July, 1994 and confirmed by Mayor-in-Council dated 2nd September, 1994 which restrict any development above 10 meter of height within 50 metre of G.T. Road and at Ward No. 36 where, this proposal site is located. The proposal of the petitioner was also cancelled. 11. The application was finally disposed of by the trial court on 6th August, 1996 dismissing the writ petition. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 6th August, 1996 passed by His Lordship the Hon'ble Justice N.K. Batabyal the appellants preferred this appeal. 12. Before entering into the merit of the case it would be desirable to know as to whether the question of sanctioning a plan should be decided within a time limit by the Howrah Municipal Corporation, a statutory body or the said sanctioning authority has an unfettered right to hang the matter for long or indefinitely on one or the other ground? In this connection let us consider the relevant provisions. Rule 4(1) of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1991 says that every person who intends to erect a new building on any site, whether previously built upon or not, or re-erect or make additions to, or alteration of, any building shall apply for sanction by giving notice in writing to the Commissioner. Thus, the intending person should give notice under Rule 4 in writing to the Municipal Commissioner. Every such notice shall be in the form as specified in Schedule 1, copies of which shall be submitted along with all the enclosures under these rules. The notice shall be accompanied by document of title in respect of land on which the proposed building is to be erected. Every such notice shall be in the form as specified in Schedule 1, copies of which shall be submitted along with all the enclosures under these rules. The notice shall be accompanied by document of title in respect of land on which the proposed building is to be erected. It has to be accompanied by location, plan, site plan and building plan and specifications. There are as many as 14 items under rule 4 which are required to be complied with when such a notice of proposed construction is given to the Municipal Commissioner. 13. Rule 12 of the said Rules deals with requisition to determine the validity of the notice. It says :- "(1) The Commissioner or any officer authorised by him may, within thirty days of the receipt of notice under section 174 of Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, issue a requisition to the applicant specifying, at a time, all the defects in the notice for sanction of plan and the applicant shall make his submission in reply to such requisition within fifteen days thereafter. (2) The Commissioner may, within fifteen days after the receipt of such reply, require further information or revised plan as he may deem fit and such information or revised plan shall be submitted within such period as may be specified by the Commissioner. (3) If any plan or information as required under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) is not forthcoming within the specified time or if the plan or information as required under these rules is not furnished to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, such notice shall be deemed not to be valid and shall be informed in writing in this regard. (4) Fresh notice shall thereafter be necessary." 14. From the above it is amply clear that the Commissioner or any officer authorised by him, may within thirty days of the receipt of the said notice issue a requisition to the applicant specifying, at a time, all the defects in the notice for sanctioning a plan. Thus, it is the bounded duty of the Commissioner or any officer authorised by him to issue a requisition to the applicant specifying all the defects and not small number of defects, if there are more defects than the said small numbers and that too at a time within thirty days and not in piece-meal manner. Thus, it is the bounded duty of the Commissioner or any officer authorised by him to issue a requisition to the applicant specifying all the defects and not small number of defects, if there are more defects than the said small numbers and that too at a time within thirty days and not in piece-meal manner. The Municipal Commissioner or any officer authorised by him has not been given the liberty or authority to specify the defects time and again. All defects have to be specified within thirty days and that too at a time while issuing requisition to the applicant. In case there is no defect the Commissioner or any officer authorised by him may not issue any requisition. In such an eventuality there is no need to issue any requisition. When such a requisition is issued then the applicant must make his submission in reply to such requisition within fifteen days thereafter. After receipt of such reply the Commissioner may within fifteen days after the receipt of such reply require further information or revised plan as he may deem fit and such information or revised plan shall be submitted within such period as may be specified by the Commissioner. It, therefore, appears that only once the requisition has to be issued to the applicant specifying, at a time, all defects in the notice for sanction of plan and on receipt of submission in reply the Commissioner may within 15 days after receipt of such reply require further information or revised plan as he may deem fit and such information or revised plan shall be submitted within such period as may be prescribed by the Commissioner. If the information or plan as required under sub-rule 1 or sub-rule 2 does not come within the specified time or if the plan or information as required under these rules is not furnished to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, such notice shall be deemed not to be valid and shall not be processed any further and the applicant shall be informed in writing in this regard. In the circumstance, fresh notice shall thereafter be necessary. 15. In the circumstance, fresh notice shall thereafter be necessary. 15. Under Rule 13 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1991 within a period of sixty days of the receipt of a valid notice, the Commissioner shall by written Order, either (a) sanction or provisionally sanction the erection, re-erection, addition to, or alteration of, the building and shall issue a Building Permit to the applicant in the form specified in Schedule V, on payment of a sanction under the provisions of the Act and rule 15 and Communicate the same to the applicant. 16. A limit has been prescribed for sanction or refusal to sanction. Section 175 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 says,- "The Commissioner shall sanction the erection of building ordinarily within a period of sixty days unless any further information or document be called for or sanction be refused in the meantime on such grounds as may be prescribed : Provided that a provisional sanction may be given for the erection of a building for the use of which a licence or permission is required from any department of Govt. or statutory body under any law for the time being in force in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed : Provided further that if it appears to the Commissioner that the site of the proposed building is likely to be affected by any scheme of acquisition of land for any public purpose or by any proposed regular line of public street or extension, improvement, widening or alteration of any street, the Commissioner may withhold sanction to the erection of the building for a period not exceeding eight months." 17. It, therefore, appears that sanction or provisional sanction has to be ordinarily given within a period of sixty days unless any further information or document be called for or sanction be refused in the meantime and the Commissioner has no authority under the Act to hang the matter for a pretty long time or indefinitely. Thus, it is amply clear that a time limit has been prescribed within which the Municipal Commissioner shall communicate the sanction or refusal of sanction as the case may be on receiving an application for sanction of a building plan. Thus, it is amply clear that a time limit has been prescribed within which the Municipal Commissioner shall communicate the sanction or refusal of sanction as the case may be on receiving an application for sanction of a building plan. In the case of erection of a new building such communication has to be made ordinarily within a period of sixty days which in case of an application for re-erection, conversion, alteration and addition such period is limited to thirty days. It further appears that the Commissioner has to issue a requisition to the applicant within thirty days of the receipt of notice under section 174 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 specifying all the defects in the notice for sanction of plan at a time and not some defects at a time and the other defect or defects on other future dates in piecemeal manner. 18. In the instant case, as it appears, the Municipal authorities have not acted according to the provisions of law in issuing the requisition to the applicants within thirty days of the receipt of the notice under section 174 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 specifying all the defects in the notice for sanction of plan at a time. The petitioners duly submitted notice as per provisions of law on July 6, 1992 for sanction of the Building Plan upto 7th floor level for erection of the multi-storied building along with (a) No dues Certificate issued by the Howrah Municipal Corporation, (b) No objection Certificate from the West Bengal Fire Services, (c) No objection Certificate from the Urban Land Ceiling Act, (d) Photostat copy of the cheques for the payment of the arrears of Municipal Taxes (e) Receipt for the fees paid to the Licensed Building Architect, (f) Soil Test Certificate of National Test House, (g) Money-receipt issued by the Howrah Municipality dated 6th July, 1992 showing the deposit of plan submission fee of Rs. 500/-. 19. It appears that the appellant submitted notice on July 6, 1992 for sanction of the plan for the erection of the seven storeyed building which was duly received by the Municipal authority along with plan submission fee of Rs. 500/- same day. Within thirty days of the receipt of the said notice, the Asst. 500/-. 19. It appears that the appellant submitted notice on July 6, 1992 for sanction of the plan for the erection of the seven storeyed building which was duly received by the Municipal authority along with plan submission fee of Rs. 500/- same day. Within thirty days of the receipt of the said notice, the Asst. Engineer Building Department, Howrah Municipal Corporation issued letter dated 21st July, 1992 to the petitioner to appear before Sri S. Chakraborty (E.O.) within 15 days for joint inspection. The petitioner met as per information and joint inspection was made. The Law Officer of Howrah Municipal Corporation vide Memo No. 20th August, 1992 asked the petitioner to contact with the Law Officer with the Deed and all other documents on 4th September, 1992. Upto this stage the authority of the Municipal Corporation did everything within the stipulated period from the date of receipt of the notice i.e., from July 6, 1992. The Municipal authority by this time or within 30 days did not specify all other defects in the notice for sanction of the plan as per rule 12 for making submission in reply to such requisition. Curiously enough the Howrah Municipal Corporation vide letter No. 548/C Arch/92-93 dated 20th October, 1992 asked the petitioner to submit fire approval as early as possible so that the proposed multistoried building complex could be sanctioned as quickly as possible. It appears from the above that the Commissioner or other Officer or Officers authorised by him exceeded the time limit as prescribed by Rule 12 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1991 as prevalent then in issuing the requisition to the applicant. It also appears that before 20th October, 1992, within the stipulated period all defects were not specified by a requisition. The Asst. Engineer and the Law Officer by different letters asked the petitioner to do this or that thing. These were not done at a time and by a requisition. Thus, Rule 12 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation was not flouted by the petitioner but by the Municipal authority in not complying it as provided. The Municipal authority should have acted within the stipulated period by issuing a requisition specifying at a time all the defects in the notice for sanction of plan as per the then prevalent law and not after the stipulated period. The Municipal authority should have acted within the stipulated period by issuing a requisition specifying at a time all the defects in the notice for sanction of plan as per the then prevalent law and not after the stipulated period. Under section 175 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the Commissioner shall sanction the erection of building ordinarily within a period of sixty days unless any further information of document be called for or sanction be refused in the meantime on such grounds as may be prescribed, provided that a provisional sanction may be given for erection of a building for the use of which a licence or permission is required from any department of Government or statutory body as may be prescribed. It is, therefore, clear that the Commissioner shall sanction the erection of building ordinarily within a period of sixty days. This provision has been clarified by rule 12 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1991 wherein it has been stated that if any plan or information as required under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) is not forth coming within the specified time or if the plan or information as required under these rules is not furnished to the satisfaction of Commissioner, such notice shall be deemed not to be valid and shall not be processed any further and the applicant shall be informed in writing in this regard and fresh notice thereafter be necessary. Had there been any defect in the notice the Municipal authority should have pointed it at a time and on failure of the applicant to furnish information to the satisfaction of the Commissioner as required under the law prevalent then, the authority should have informed in writing that the notice being not valid shall not be necessary any further. It appears that the Municipal authority did not do so and when on asking for this or that information time and again. Rejection of the notice or sanction of the plan upto 7th Floor or provisional sanction should have been made within the stipulated period as per the then prevalent law and not thereafter. The said letter No. 548/C Arch/92-93 dated 20th October, 1992 for submission of the fire approval should have been sent to the applicants within the stipulated period while making the said requisition pointing out all the defects at a time including submission of the fire approval. The said letter No. 548/C Arch/92-93 dated 20th October, 1992 for submission of the fire approval should have been sent to the applicants within the stipulated period while making the said requisition pointing out all the defects at a time including submission of the fire approval. The petitioner, however, immediately made application to the Director, West Bengal Fire Service for issuance of no-objection Certificate and after obtaining the same duly submitted the said No-objection Certificate of Fire Service to the Chief Architect Engineer vide letter dated 8th February, 1993. Even then the Municipal authority did not sanction the plan although more than two months passed from the date of submission of the above No objection Certificate of Fire Service to the Chief Architect Engineer vide letter dated 8th February, 1993 after obtaining the same from the Director, West Bengal Fire Service. The unnecessary extraordinary delay made by plaintiff to challenge the inaction and/or non-action on the part of the Respondent Howrah Municipal Corporation authorities for not taking any steps or sanctioning the building plan. Under Rule 12 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules and under section 175 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act the Municipal authority shall have sanctioned the erection of building ordinarily within a period of sixty days and in case the Municipal authorities were satisfied that any plan or information as required under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) of rule 12 was not forthcoming within the specified time or if the information as required under these rules was not furnished to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, the notice should have been deemed to be invalid and the Municipal authorities should have informed about the same and should have also informed in writing that the said notice shall not be processed any further. But instead of sanctioning the plan or rejecting the sanction or informing the applicant that the notice for sanctioning the plan cannot be processed any further, the Municipal authorities requested the court to give some more time within which it would consider and dispose of the application for sanction and as result of which Altamas Kabir, J. disposed of the said writ application on 26th April, 1993 by directing the Municipal Corporation to consider and dispose of the petitioners application for grant of sanction of the building plan submitted by the petitioners on 6th June, 1992 within a period of four weeks in accordance with the Howrah Municipal Act and the Building Rules. The said order was communicated to the Municipal authorities on April 26, 1993 which was received by them on April 27, 1993. The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that instead of sanctioning the plan after consideration the Municipal authority in order to further delay the matter asked time for giving a declaration that they would follow every recommendation of the West Bengal Fire Service vide Memo No. WBFS/549/How-3/92 dated 1st February, 1993 during the course of construction. He further rightly submitted that the Municipal authority should have asked for submission of such declaration and other information, if any, earlier and not in peace meal manner. The petitioner in compliance of the said letter gave a declaration on May 10, 1993 in favour of the Chief Architect where he undertook to obey all the recommendation of the West Bengal Fire Service in course of construction of the said proposed building. The petitioner in compliance of the said letter gave a declaration on May 10, 1993 in favour of the Chief Architect where he undertook to obey all the recommendation of the West Bengal Fire Service in course of construction of the said proposed building. He also submitted that instead of sanctioning the plan and informing the court that such sanction has been given the petitioner was asked by the Respondent authority to appear before them on May 11, 1993 for consideration of the application for grant of sanction of the building plan submitted on 6th July, 1992 and in course of hearing the Respondent authorities noted that the petitioners have maintained all the formalities as prescribed by law and even then the Respondent authorites took no step for sanctioning the plan and the matter was reported to the court that all the documents have been submitted and have been recorded in the Minutes of the meeting dated 11th May 1993 and when the records of the Minutes of the said proceeding were produced, Altamas Kabir, J. observed that from the contents of letter it appears that most of the matters mentioned in the said letter were considered at the meeting of 11.5.93 and certain decisions were taken thereupon. It appears from the discussions made above that at least by this time the Municipal authority should have sanctioned the plan up to the 7th floor as submitted on 6th July, 1992 and should not have forced, the petitioners to appear before the Court for the redressal of their grievances Hon'ble Justice Altamas Kabir, however, directed the Respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioners application for grant of sanction of the building plan within a period of three weeks from May 28, 1993 and further gave liberty to the petitioners to deal with the letter dated 15th May, 1993 in any manner they choose. Even after the stipulated period the Respondent authorities did not take any step for sanction of the aforesaid plan. His Lordship Justice Altamas Kabir directed the matter to appear before His Lordship on June 30, 1993. Even after the stipulated period the Respondent authorities did not take any step for sanction of the aforesaid plan. His Lordship Justice Altamas Kabir directed the matter to appear before His Lordship on June 30, 1993. The Municipal Corporation then informed the petitioner vide communication dated 18th June, 1993 that as they did not submit the corrected copies of the calculation sheet and building plan for showing the corrected F.A.R. as discussed on 11th May, 1993 and copies of the proposed plan without any tampering, over writing or pen mark and as such the Municipal authorities rejected the sanction of the plan. It was also pointed out that in the high density zone of Ward No. 12 to 16, 29 to 31 and 33 to 40 no further development above G+2 will be allowed in the public interest. The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioners rightly submitted that the Municipal authorities dragged on the matter time and again against the provisions of law till it was rejected. 20. On December, 1993 after hearing both the parties His Lordship passed the following order on the petition:- "It appears that sanction of Building Plans within Howrah Municipal area is permissible upto Ground plus 4th floor level and as contended on behalf of the petitioners even upto 7th floor level. This submission made on behalf of the petitioners is not disputed on behalf of the Howrah Municipal Corporation. Having regard to the above, I dispose of the application by directing the Howrah Municipal Corporation to grant sanction to the petitioners plan submitted on 6th July, 1992 upto 4th floor level, if all the requirements are duly complied with by the writ petitioners. Such sanction must be given by the Howrah Municipal Corporation within one month from the date of communication of this order. The Howrah Municipality is directed to notify the petitioners the necessary sanctioning fees and the sanction is to be deposited by the petitioners upon being so notified. This order will not prevent the petitioners from applying for further sanction if the same is at all permissible at a later date. The application is, thus, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs." 21. In the light of the aforesaid order Sri M.P. Banerjee, the learned lawyer for the petitioners made two fold submissions. This order will not prevent the petitioners from applying for further sanction if the same is at all permissible at a later date. The application is, thus, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs." 21. In the light of the aforesaid order Sri M.P. Banerjee, the learned lawyer for the petitioners made two fold submissions. According to the learned lawyer although the Mayor-in-Council took a decision on 11th June, 1993 that in a high density zone of Ward Nos. 12-16, 29-31, 33-40 no further vertical development above G+2 would be allowed in the public interest, His Lordship Justice Altamas Kabir directed on December 23, 1993 to grant sanction to the petitioners plan upto fourth floor level. His another submission was that even on December 23, 1993 the Respondent Municipality did not dispute the contention that within Howrah Municipal area sanction of building plans was permissible upto ground plus 4th floor level and even upto 7th floor level. He has, therefore, rightly submitted that the Municipal authority by December 1993 should have sanctioned the building plan upto 7th floor level which was submitted on July 6, 1992 for which there was no need for the petitioners to submit further plan for 5th, 6th and 7th floor as it was very clear from the order dated 23rd December, 1993 of Justice Altamas Kabir that even on the date of passing the said order the Howrah Municipal Corporation did not dispute the contention of the petitioner that sanction of plans within Howrah Municipal area was permissible upto 7th floor which means that the Municipal authorities was in agreement with the contention that upto 7th floor the plan could be sanctioned. It appears that in compliance of the order dated 23rd December, the petitioner had to file formally plan for 5th, 6th and 7th floor which the Municipality in view of the amendment of the H.M.C. Building Rules 1991 published in Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary dated 15th July, 1994, and the decision of the M.I.C. dated 18th July, 1994 and confirmed by the M.I.C. meeting dated 2.9.94, cancelled it. In the context of the discussion made above it was immaterial that the plans for the 5th, 6th and 7th floor were submitted before 15th July, 1994, the cut of date or after. In the context of the discussion made above it was immaterial that the plans for the 5th, 6th and 7th floor were submitted before 15th July, 1994, the cut of date or after. The original plan was submitted as early as on July 6, 1992 up to 7th floor and as per the unamended provisions prevalent then it should have been passed much before 15th July, 1994 and there was no need for the court to intervene in the matter time and again. The petitioners had to come before the court time and again as the Municipal authorities did not perform the stipulated duties as required under the provisions of law as prevalent before 15th July, 1994. The court, in the circumstances, was required to intervene again and again as the respondents allowed the matter to remain pending for long and ultimately taking a decision which was communicated vide communications dated 18th June, 1993 and also taking shelter under the amended provisions, rejected the sanction. There is no merit in the contention of the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the Howrah Municipal Corporation that the appellant-petitioners did not apply for grant of sanction of 5th, 6th and 7th floor in time and according to law. It is quite clear from the discussions made above that the petitioners had submitted the notice under rule 4 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1991 for sanction of the plan up to 7th floor level. On July 6, 1992, much before the amended provisions came into operation and the plan up to 7th floor level could not be sanctioned due to the delaying tactics of the Howrah Municipal Corporation and it allowed the matter of sanction pending till it rejected the plan for 5th, 6th and 7th floor taking shelter of the notification which was published on 15th July, 1994. Under rule 13 of the said Rules of 1991 it was incumbent upon the Municipal authority to sanction or provisionally sanction the said plan submitted on July 6, 1992 or to refuse sanction or provisional sanction within a period of sixty days of the receipt of the said notice dated July 6, 1992. In case of refusal the authority should have recorded the grounds under rule 13 in the form specified in schedule VII and communicated the same to the applicants. In case of refusal the authority should have recorded the grounds under rule 13 in the form specified in schedule VII and communicated the same to the applicants. But instead of sanctioning or refusing to accord sanction the authority delayed the matter for a very long period and that led to litigation. Justice N.K. Batabyal while dismissing the writ in matter No. 2561 of 1994 on 6th August had to observe as follows:- "In the case at hand, it is nobody's case that the writ petitioners had come with unclean hands, rather the conduct of the H.M.C. deserves condemnation as due to their fault, the writ petitioners have been harassed and have been compelled to seek their relief in writ court repeatedly." 22. Even after that kind of serious observation the trial court dismissed the petition. The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioners has rightly submitted that even after making the aforesaid observation the learned Trial Court erred in holding that this had been the infraction of statutory duty on the part of the Municipality in the matter of refusal to grant sanction. He has also rightly submitted that had the Howrah Municipal Corporation acted with proper diligence and according to law, prevalent then and that too in time without taking recourse to delaying tactics and incorrect resolution the building plan of the appellants must have been sanctioned much before the impugned Notification came into force on 15th July, 1994. He also submitted that because of the inaction and delaying tactics of the Respondent authority the appellants cannot be allowed to suffer. He also submitted that all the actions of the Howrah Municipal Corporation asking for submission of different informations beyond the prescribed period of sixty days on different dates shall be deemed to be actions without law and when an action is taken arbitrarily without the sanction of law or under an invalid law, in such a case, High Court may interfere under Article 226 (as held by the Supreme Court in Tata Engineering Locomotive vs. Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, AIR 1967 SC 1401 .). 23. Even in cases of statutory discretion it cannot be fettered by self created rules or policies, Mandamus, is required to be granted to compel an authority to act as per requirement of the law. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, AIR 1967 SC 1401 .). 23. Even in cases of statutory discretion it cannot be fettered by self created rules or policies, Mandamus, is required to be granted to compel an authority to act as per requirement of the law. Where the requirement of law is that the Commissioner or any Officer authorised by him may, within thirty days of the receipt of the notice under section 174 of Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 issue a requisition to the applicant specifying, at a time, all, the defects in the notice for sanction of plan and the applicant shall make his submission in reply to such requisition within fifteen days thereafter and the Commissioner may, within fifteen days after the receipt of such reply, require further information or revised plan as he may deem fit and such information or revised plan shall be submitted within such period as may be specified by the Commissioner, it is incumbent upon the Commissioner or any officer authorised by him to issue requisition within the stipulated period specifying, at a time, all the defects in the notice for sanction of the plan and not in a piecemeal manner at different times and on failure of the applicant to submit further information to the satisfaction of the Municipal authority, the Municipal authority was bound to inform the applicant within the stipulated period that such notice shall be deemed not to be valid and shall not be processed any further. But the Municipal authority did not do so and went on asking for further information time and again and this action of the Howrah Municipal Corporation very much delayed the matter resulting in filing writs and applications and also in refusing ultimately sanction of the plan. A statutory power conferred on a particular authority should be exercised by that authority in the manner prescribed by the statute. Rule 13 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules gives power to the Municipal Corporation either to sanction or give provisional sanction to the erection, re-erection, addition to or alteration of the building plan or to refuse sanction or provisional sanction within the period of 60 days from the receipt of the valid notice. This does not empower the Respondent authority that it was entitled to delay the matter for a long period on one pretext or the other. This does not empower the Respondent authority that it was entitled to delay the matter for a long period on one pretext or the other. In the instant case the plan was submitted and notice was given on July 6, 1992, and as such sanction should have been granted or refused as per the building rules prevailing then and not as per the amended rules that came into force on 15th July, 1994. 24. Sri Banerjee, the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioners-appellants has rightly submitted that the plan for 5th, 6th and 7th floor which was submitted in terms of the order dated December 23, 1993 of Altamas Kabir, J. was in continuation of the original plan and not a fresh plan. In this connection he has drawn our attention to the order dated 23rd December, 1993 wherein His Lordship directed that the petitioner may apply for "further sanction" which does not and cannot mean for fresh sanction. He, therefore, submitted that it would be deemed to be in continuation of the original plan and not a fresh plan and as such the rules prevalent earlier, i.e., at the time of making the original application shall apply in such cases. He also submitted that filing of further application cannot be treated as a proposal for fresh sanction and as such also the finding of the trial court is bad in law and must be set aside. 25. The learned lawyer appearing for the appellants-petitioners further submitted that under the amended rule 20(3) the Commissioner has been given unguided, uncanalysed and arbitrary power. 25. The learned lawyer appearing for the appellants-petitioners further submitted that under the amended rule 20(3) the Commissioner has been given unguided, uncanalysed and arbitrary power. It reads as follows :- "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2), if the Commissioner having regard to (a) the existing water supply, sewerage and drainage system in any ward or part thereof, or (b) the traffic carrying capacity of a street in any ward or part thereof, or (c) the density of population of that area, or (d) the commercial activity of that area, or (e) the conditions of the existing building, is of the opinion that the erection of any building exceeding 10 metres in height or execution of any work in such ward or part thereof will put additional burden on the existing civic services, he may sanction erection of such building or execution of such work subject to such restriction of height and F.A.R. or conditions including uses as he may deem fit to impose provided that no such action shall be taken by the Commissioner without prior approval of the Mayor-in-Council." He has, therefore, submitted that the Commissioner should not be given such arbitrary and unbriddled power and unfettered discretion. 26. In this connection he has relied on a decision as reported in AIR 1993 SC page 935 (Mahesh Chandra vs. Regional Manager & Ors.) wherein it has been held as follows :- "Every wide power, the exercise of which has far reaching repercussion has inherent limitation on it. It should be exercised to effectuate the purpose of the Act. In legislation enacted for general benefit and common good the responsibility is far graver. It demands purposeful approach. The exercise of discretion should be objective. Test of reasonableness is more strict. The public functionaries should be duty conscious rather than power charged. Its actions and decisions which touch the common man have to be tested on the touch stone of fairness and Justice. That which is not fair and just is unreasonable. And what is unreasonable is arbitrary. And arbitrary action is ultra vires. It does not become bona fide and in good faith merely because no personal gain or benefit to the person exercising discretion should be established. An action is mala fide if it is contrary to the purpose for which it was authorised to be exercised. And what is unreasonable is arbitrary. And arbitrary action is ultra vires. It does not become bona fide and in good faith merely because no personal gain or benefit to the person exercising discretion should be established. An action is mala fide if it is contrary to the purpose for which it was authorised to be exercised. Dishonesty in discharge of duty vitiates action without anything more. An action is bad even without proof of motive of dishonesty if the authority if found to have acted contrary to reasons." 27. He has, therefore, submitted that the Municipal authorities did not act reasonably and that too within time and allowed the matter to remain pending until it was rejected under the amended provisions which gave very wide discretionary power to the Commissioner. 28. He has also submitted that all statutory powers have to be exercised within a reasonable time. Even where no time limit is prescribed for the exercise of the power, the court may be prepared to imply some limit to the life of a statutory power granted without express limit of time and quash a decision taken beyond what it regards as its reasonable life. The delay, according to the learned lawyer, in exercising statutory power may throw doubt on the motive of the decision maker to exercise a power or its reasonableness. He has submitted that in the instant case though ordinarily time limit of 60 days has been prescribed within which the statutory authority should have taken a decision to sanction or to refuse sanction, it delayed the matter not in months but in years. 29. He has also relied upon a decision as reported in 1995 (II) CHN page 56 Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. vs. Arunendra Nath Banerjee of the Division Bench of this Court, presided over by Justice B.P. Banerjee. The Division Bench held as follows :- "The Municipal authority, in our view, is bound to act fairly and properly. The Municipal authority cannot, in order to make the amended act effect, sit over the matter by not issuing the formal sanction of the plan when sanctioning process had been finalised and completed for all practical purposes. The statutory authorities are bound to discharge its duties in accordance with the statute and cannot be allowed to delay proceeding on some plea or other contrary to public interest. The statutory authorities are bound to discharge its duties in accordance with the statute and cannot be allowed to delay proceeding on some plea or other contrary to public interest. When the Municipal authority is charged with the duty to perform and even if no period of limitation is prescribed, the statutory authorities are bound to take steps expeditiously and that within a reasonable time. They are not authorised to sit over the matter and delay the process with some oblique purpose." (Para 21). 30. Sri Banerjee, the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioners has rightly submitted that the Municipal authorities, in the instant case, sat over the matter deliberately for a very long time and did not discharge its duties within the prescribed time limit and allowed to delay the proceeding on some pretext or the other till it was rejected invoking the provisions of the amended Rules. The Respondent, Municipality as is evident from the records, delayed the grant of sanction of the said building plan and then it cannot take advantage of its own wrong, nor the petitioners-appellants can suffer owning to acts of commission and omission on the part of the respondents. 31. The Municipal Authorities are the creatures of the statute and it is well settled that a statutory body can not discharge any power and/or functions not authorised by the law and if it does so, the act in question will be ultra vires. The Municipal Authorities have no discretion to sit over the matter in anticipation that the rules would be changed in the near future and under the new rules, the same could be easily rejected. This is a clear case of abuse of discretion. All statutory powers have got its own limits. Even if no limitation is prescribed, statutory powers have to be exercised within a reasonable time. It is also true that the plan has to be sanctioned on the basis of the rules existing or prevailing at the time when the plan is sanctioned. But it does not mean that at a time when the plan was submitted, the said plan could have been sanctioned, the authorities concerned sat tightly, deliberately and motivatedly in contemplation of a change of a rule and to take action on the basis revised rule. But it does not mean that at a time when the plan was submitted, the said plan could have been sanctioned, the authorities concerned sat tightly, deliberately and motivatedly in contemplation of a change of a rule and to take action on the basis revised rule. Applying the principle that the Municipal Authorities had not acted fairly, reasonably and lawfully by deciding the plan on the basis of the new rule. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the action of the Municipal Authorities are on the face of it, it amounts to abuse of discretion and acting in a manner which is not fair and proper. The action of the Municipal Authorities are mala fide and acting contrary to the statute and in a manner which unfair and improper. Fairness is now a part of the principle of natural justice. All principle of fairness are applicable to all cases and in the instant case, it would not be proper on the part of this court to uphold the stand taken by the Municipal Authorities as the same would amount nothing but to allow the Municipal Authorities to act in a cavalier and unfair manner and in the manner which clearly amounts a fraud upon the statute. 32. In view of the discussions made above and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case we allow this appeal by directing the Respondent, Municipal Corporation to grant sanction of plan being 5th, 6th and 7th floor within two weeks from the date of communication of this order. 33. It is however, made clear that the Municipal authority may ask for deposit of usual sanction fee and the petitioners, on such demand, are directed to pay the same. Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.: I agree. Appeal allowed.