JUDGMENT LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.—Mrs. Savitri Lal, Mrs. Usha Ahluwalia and M/s. Himland Hotel Resorts Pvt. Limited through Managing Director Mr. Anil Walia are the petitioners in this writ petition. The State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Town & Country Planning) and Local Self Government, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (respondent No. 1), Director, Town and Country Planning (respondent No. 2), Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla (respondent No. 3) and Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (HPSIDC) respondent No. 4 through its Managing Director are the respondents and other, two persons are proforma respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek following directions: (a) To Direct respondents No. 1 to 3 to ensure that respondent No. 4 does not carry out any further construction by way of extension or otherwise to the existing seven storeyed structure known as New Himrus Building, Circular Road, Shimla, especially the proposed construction on the Western side of the existing building and more particularly on the eastern side of the said building directly in front of building known as Himland Hotel West, Shimla; till such time that regular and proper sanction is applied for and accorded to the proposed construction after taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act and Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, the building bylaws and regulations as framed by the respondents under the said Acts as also the existing building by-laws and more particularly, the F.A.R. ratio and its maintenance in the matter of construction by respondent No. 4. (b) To restrain respondent No. 4 from carrying out any construction on land comprising Khewat No. 228/Khatauni No. 329 and Khasara Nos. 1581, 1583, 1584, 1585/1, 1586, 1588, 1589, 1590, 1591, 1592, 1593 and 1594, till such time that proper permission/sanction is applied for and obtained from respondents 2 and 3 in respect of any proposed construction. The said respondents also further needs to be restrained from carrying out any construction which violates the F.A.R. ratio and which is beyond the permissible limit of four storeys which again a subject to the F.A.R. ratio as also the fact that it does not violate the angle of 16-1/2 degrees taken from the base of Himland Hotel West to the top of the construction proposed by the said respondent No. 4. (c) To prohibit by way of issuance of appropriate directions, the construction of any building/structure by the respondent No. 4 which may interfere in any manner whatsoever with the light, ear, sun light in respect of the property of petitioners No. 1 to 3, more particularly known as Hotel Himland West Shimla. (d) To direct respondents No. 1 to 3 to demolish and remove the present illegal constructions already carried out apd proposed to be carried out by respondent No. 4 without obtaining the necessary requisite permission/sanction required under law, and (e) To allow any other relief deemed fit by this Honble Court in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents and direct them to produce their entire record pertaining to and relating to the case. Petitioner No. 1 purchased a residential flat in the second floor of the building known as Himland Hotel West in the year 1979. Petitioner No. 3 is a Private Limited Company. They have alleged in the writ petition that entire property known as Himland Hotel East and West as also the building in which the Zonal Office of UCO Bank, Himachal Pradesh is housed, earlier belonged to Mr. V.P. Akre the father of petitioner No. 2 and proforma respondents No. 5 and 6, had divided Hotel Himland into two parts known as Himland Hotel East and Himland Hotel West, Shimla. The property known Himland West was willed by Shri V.P. Akre exclusively to petitioner No. 2. However, the ground floor and basement of the said portion wherein the National Insurance Corporation has its offices was willed by him to proforma respondent No. 6. Petitioner No. 2 has in turn leased out the portion known as Himland Hotel West to petitioner No. 3-Company of which she is also the Director. Petitioner No. 3 is currently running and carrying on business of hoteliering in and from the leased premises. Proforma respondent No. 5 is carrying on business of hoteliering from and in the premises known as Hotel Himland East. The petitioners alleged that right in front of the premises known as Hotel Himland West which is built on part of Khasra No. 1597, respondent No. 4-Corporation owns and possesses 1270.39 Sq. meters of land comprising Khewat No. 228, Khatauni No. 329, Khasras No. 1581, 1583, 1584, 1585/1, 1586, 1588, 1589, 1590, 1591, 1592, 1593 and 1594 situate in Up Mohal Bemloe, Mauja Ward Chhota Shimla. meters of land comprising Khewat No. 228, Khatauni No. 329, Khasras No. 1581, 1583, 1584, 1585/1, 1586, 1588, 1589, 1590, 1591, 1592, 1593 and 1594 situate in Up Mohal Bemloe, Mauja Ward Chhota Shimla. On Khasra No. 1589 measuring 34.59 Sq. meters respondent No. 4-Corporation has one two storeyed building whereas on Khasra No. 1590 measuring 398.72 Sq. meters, the respondent No. 4 has an existing seven storeyed Official Complex. On the Eastern and Western portions of the said existing seven storeyed building of respondent No. 4, the respondent has commenced construction of additional buildings which are apparently to be connected and opened up with the existing seven storeyed building and such proposed construction already under construction on the Eastern portion of the existing official complex of respondent No. 4 falls right in front of the existing buildings known as Hotel Himland West. The petitioners alleged that the construction which is presently under way and proposed to be constructed by respondent No. 4-Corporation is highly illegal and cannot permitted to be carried out by respondent No. 4 on the grounds that the initial already existing seven storeyed office complex presently built upon Khasra No. 1590 is also without any legal sanction or permission and in gross violation of the norms of construction of the Municipal Corporation Act as well as the Town and Country Planning Act. It is also submitted that to the best of the knowledge of the petitioners, respondents No. 2 and 3 did not take any action whatsoever to stop the illegal construction or to demolish the same and as a matter of fact, even presently no action appears to have been taken by them qua the illegal extension of the existing building, by way of the proposed constructions and additions to the same on the Eastern and Western side. The petitioners also alleged that respondent No. 4 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, although it is owned to a great extent by the State Government of Himachal Pradesh. Yet, the fact remains that as a Company it is bound by the same laws, rules and procedure governing the construction of buildings, as are applicable to other individuals, companies and citizens of Shimla. Yet, the fact remains that as a Company it is bound by the same laws, rules and procedure governing the construction of buildings, as are applicable to other individuals, companies and citizens of Shimla. As per the provisions of Building Regulations, maximum number of four storeys can legally be permitted to be raised in the area subject to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) which has necessarily to be maintained. If the building bye-laws of respondent No. 3 Corporation are to be observed, then it will be noticed that atotal area of 1270,39 Sq. mtrs is owned and possessed by respondent No. 4-Corporation but the F.A.R. of the area of the land owned by it already works out to 2540 Sq. meters. In respect of the existing seven storeyed office block and three storeyed office block (Khasra No. 1584) as well as the two storeyed quarters (Khasra No. 1589), the petitioners alleged that the net covered area by respondent No. 4 is more than 3308.50 Sq. mtrs. as per para A-2 of the Expert Report submitted by Mr. Sharat Rai, Architect of M/s Shilpa Architects marked as Annexure PC to the writ petition. They have alleged that it appears that inadvertently in Annexure PC, the Expert Sh. Rai has not taken into consideration the block of two storeyed quarters built on Khasra No. 1589 and has also not taken into consideration the fact that the old original building which is used as an office is actually three storeyed and not two storeyed constructed on Khasra No. 1584. Hence, if the constructed floor area area of these two constructions is also taken into consideration, then the aforementioned constructed area of 3308.50 Sq. meters is bound to increase further. The petitioners have further alleged that more than 3308.50 Sq. meters is bound to increase further. The present proposed construction which is under way is, thus, in a gross violation of building norms and the construction, therefore, is highly illegal. meters is bound to increase further. The petitioners have further alleged that more than 3308.50 Sq. meters is bound to increase further. The present proposed construction which is under way is, thus, in a gross violation of building norms and the construction, therefore, is highly illegal. The petitioners have also stated that it is mandatory under the existing building norms of respondents No. 2 and 3 to ensure that adequate parking space is provided while carrying out any construction and it appears that the entire plot of land belonging to respondent No. 4-Corporation is apparently being governed, especially land which adjoins the road and hence to parking space has been provided and that on account of total lack of parking space, the present occupants of the existing office buildings belonging to respondent No. 4-Corporation as also the daily visitors to such offices, park their cars and vehicles haphazardly on the road which leads from Himrus Building and Hotel Himland West, along the main gate of St. Edward School and connects with the main Circular Road. Vehicles are also un-authorisedly and illegally parked in the parking space, which is the private property of the owners of Himland Hotel East and West leading to a nuisance as also conjection in the area. The petitioners also alleged that as per the Shimla Interim Development Plan made under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 the area in question is a residential area and no office complex can be permitted to be built there. As per the building Regulations of the H.P. Town and Country Planning Organisation, minimum of 2.50 mtrs. set back is required to be left from the road/ path which should be itself of a minimum width of 3.05 mtrs. and such set backs have not been provided in the proposed constructions by respondent No. 4-Corporation. Further, as per the Regulations of respondent No. 2, a minimum distance of 2.50 mtrs. had to be maintained between the present proposed constructions and the existing seven storeyed building and no such distance has been provided for or kept. Secondly, if the existing seven storeyed building is to be extended by means of the proposed constructions, on the eastern and western side, then as per the National Building Code, it is mandatory to provide an expansion joint after every 40 mtrs. Secondly, if the existing seven storeyed building is to be extended by means of the proposed constructions, on the eastern and western side, then as per the National Building Code, it is mandatory to provide an expansion joint after every 40 mtrs. of the length of the building which has also not been done in the present case. Petitioners emphasised that the proposed construction if permitted shall completely block the light, air and view of the existing building known as Hotel Himland West and as per the National Building Code, an angle of 19.50 degree is required to be maintained at the maximum in between two buildings and as per the building bye laws of respondent No. 3-Corporation such an angle has to be of 37-1/2 degree at the maximum and no construction beyond such an angle as taken from the base of Himland Hotel West can be permitted to be constructed which was constructed much prior in time to the present proposed construction. Petitioner No. 1 has further stated that proposed construction will completely block her view, light, air and sun shine and shall make her flat a dungeon besides the entire ecology and environment of the area will be highly disturbed further. The petitioners alleged that they have a right guaranteed to them by the Constitution to live in a clean, healthy and conducive environment and respondents No. 1 to 4 cannot be permitted to take away this right by haphazard and illegal construction. Petitioners also submitted that the building of the Hotel will also become dark and dingy and it shall adversely affect the business of the Hotel putting the owners of the Hotel to great loss. Petitioners again submitted that respondent No. 4-Corporation although a State Government owned Company is not above the law and it cannot be permitted to carry on with illegal and un-sanctioned construction in total violations of the existing building bye-laws, norms and regulations as also provisions of the H.P. Municipal Corporation and H.P. Town and Country Planning Act and the respondents 1 to 3 deserve to be directed to ensure that no construction is carried out by respondent No. 4-Corporation and the proposed construction is immediately stopped and the. constructed portion, which has been constructed without any sanction /permission is immediately demolished. constructed portion, which has been constructed without any sanction /permission is immediately demolished. The action of respondents No. 1 to 3 in turning a blind eye to the ongoing construction of respondent No. 4-Corporation is highly arbitrary, besides being illegal and discriminatory and violative of the principles of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On the basis of these premises the present writ petition has been filed seeking the aforesaid directions and reliefs. 3. A joint reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 has been filed by Shri Ashwani Kapur, Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Himachal Pradesh. In reply to paras 5 and 6 of the writ petition it is submitted that planning permission case in favour of respondent No. 4-Corporation for additions of the existing structure was approved by the department vide No. HIM/TP Case No. 6263/ 94-1215-16 dated 24.8.1995 and a valid sanction was granted in favour of respondent No. 4 as per the Rules and Regulations of Town and Country Planning Act and Interim Development Plan (IDP), Shimla. It is also submitted that in the case of buildings pertaining to office, public utilities services etc., the limit of storeys is not limited to four as alleged by the petitioners and it is within the powers of respondent No. 2 to grant more number of storeys as per the provisions of IDP, Shimla. It is also alleged that F.A.R. will not apply to the planning permission case of respondent No. 4-Corporation as the planning permission case was submitted in the office of respondent No. 2 in the month of July, 1994 whereas the F.A.R. was introduced after 11.3.1995; that as per the approved plans the right side of the buildings, basement floor as well as left sides of first floor has been kept as parking floor; that since the planning permission case for additions in the existing building being used as official complex has only been approved vide office letter dated 24.8.1995 as such the change of land use was not involved in the present case; that as per the provisions of IDP, Shimla the front setback has been proposed as 2.00 mtrs. and the side set-back on both the sides as well as the rear set-back has been proposed for 2.50 mtrs. and the side set-back on both the sides as well as the rear set-back has been proposed for 2.50 mtrs. and that since the permission has been granted for addition to the existing building and no separate block has been proposed, there is no requirement of distance to be kept. The petition is prayed to be dismissed with exemplory costs in the interest of justice. 4. Reply on behalf of respondent No. 3-Corporation has been filed by Ms. Nisha Singh, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla. In reply to paragraph 5 of the petition it is submitted that after the submission of the building application case of respondent No. 4-Corporation, the same was dealt with in the light of Municipal Corporation bye-laws and only thereafter sanction was accorded and that there is no question of stopping the construction since it was a legal and valid sanction. It is denied that the replying respondents has adopted a highly discriminatory attitude in favour of respondent No. ^Corporation as alleged and the bye-laws have been applied to the construction of respondent No, 4-Corporation in the same manner as they are applied to every one; that in the case of buildings pertaining to offices, public utility/services etc., the limit of storeys is not restricted to four as prescribed in the IDP and the Commissioner is well within its rights to grant more number of storeys as per the provisions of IDP, Shimla. It is also submitted that there is sufficient gap in between in Himland Hotel West and the proposed addition to the existing building and as such there will be no blockage of light and air and it is denied that any action of replying respondent is either arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Reply on behalf of respondent No. 4-Corporation has been filed by Shri B.C. Bali, Senior Architect raising two preliminary objections besides contesting the writ petition on merit. Preliminary objection No. 1 is based upon the maintainability of the writ petition because it involves disputed and contentious factual issue which cannot be determined under extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court. 5. Reply on behalf of respondent No. 4-Corporation has been filed by Shri B.C. Bali, Senior Architect raising two preliminary objections besides contesting the writ petition on merit. Preliminary objection No. 1 is based upon the maintainability of the writ petition because it involves disputed and contentious factual issue which cannot be determined under extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the Court. In preliminary objection No. 2 it is contended that the petitioners are abusing the process of the Court by making false and baseless allegations; that they have not come to the Court with clean hand and suppressed the truth from the Court by distorted the facts; that the petitioners are also estopped from filing the present writ petition on account of their own acts, deeds, conducts and acquiescence etc. It is also alleged that the petitioners are trying to enforce their alleged easementary rights of air, light and sunshine etc. by filing the present writ petition and proper remedy in the circumstances is only Civil Suit for establishing of their civil rights. On merits it is denied that there is any Will of the property made in favour of petitioner No. 2 as no copy of any alleged Will has been filed with the writ petition. In reply to paragraph 5 of the writ petition it is stated that total area owned by respondent No. 4 as per latest settlement is 1270.39 Sq. mtrs. which includes the area of original old Himrus Building now comprised in Khasra No. 1584 which was purchased by respondent No. 4 in the year 1976; that the adjoining property on which the new Himrus Building was constructed was purchased by respondent No. 4 subsequently. In the recent settlement both the properties have been shown in one Khata of respondent No. 4 and there is only single storeyed electricity sub-station built upon Khasra No. 1589 and that the allegations of the petitioners that there is a double storeyed building on Khasra No. 1589 are not correct. In the recent settlement both the properties have been shown in one Khata of respondent No. 4 and there is only single storeyed electricity sub-station built upon Khasra No. 1589 and that the allegations of the petitioners that there is a double storeyed building on Khasra No. 1589 are not correct. It is submitted that replying respondent submitted a plan for construction of five storeyed building including one basement on Khasra No. 1590 to the Municipal Corporation, Shimla in the year 1975 which was sanctioned on 28.1.1976 and the construction activity of the said building started in the year 1976-77 and was completed in the year 1985-86 and that the completion plan was sanctioned on 27.2.1986, Two copies of the sanction order dated 28.1.1976 are filed with the reply marked Annexures R-4/A, R-4/ B and copy of completion sanction is R-4/C. Respondent has submitted that the new additions and alterations to the old existing structure sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation in 1976 were approved and sanctioned by the Town and Country Planning Department on 28.4.1995 and by the Municipal Corporation on 22.7.1996. Copies of sanction letters and sanctioned plans have been placed on record and marked Annexures R-4/D and R-4/D1 to D7, R-4/E and R~ 4/F1 to F7 respectively. A copy of application for additions and alterations was submitted to the authorities concerned on 15.7.1994 which is marked as Annexure R-4/G and the initial observations of Town and Country Planning Department is filed as Annexure R-4/H. A copy of re-submission of the plan after removing the objections is filed as Annexure R-4/I. The respondent states that it has been allowed to construct a four storeyed structure on Khasra Nos. 1588, 1589 and 1591 and the allegations made contrary by the petitioners regarding illegal construction are totally wrong, false and baseless. It is also submitted that a provision for parking in the basement of the new structure at road level on both sides has been provided and the report prepared by M/s. Shilpa Architects Annexure P-B to the writ petition is stated to be absolutely wrong and one sided for the reason that in the said report the petitioners have depicted the proposed new structure as seven storeyed whereas factually it is only four storeyed and similarly the measurement and distances have not been properly shown in the said annexure. The respondent has filed the factual position of the site and construction by means of technical report and site plan marked Annexures R-4/J and R-4/K respectively. It is submitted that the proposed construction on Khasra Nos. 1588, 1589 and 1591 in the shape of additions and alterations to the existing structure has been carried out in accordance with the sanctioned plan accorded by the Municipal Corporation and Town and Country Planning Department to the respondent and the petitioners have not specified violation of any bye-laws and, therefore, the allegations made in the writ petition are false and frivolous. The total building area of New Himrus Complex which was purchased from Smt. Kamlesh Chadha and Shri Manohar Lal Chadha and presently comprising in Khasra Nos. 1577, 1589, 1590, 1591, 1592, 1593 and 1594 was 1131.60 Sq. yards and a building by the name of New Himrus Building was constructed on Khasra No. 1590 in the year 1976-77 as per the then building bye-laws and completion thereof was properly sanctioned by the authorities. The existing covered area of the said New Himrus Building standing built upon Khasra No. 1590 is 364 Sq. mtrs. and the area of additional accommodation being provided to the said building on Khasra Ros. 1588 and 1589 is 86.95 Sq. mtrs. and the covered area approved by the authorities on Khasra No. 1591 is 62.56 Sq. mtrs. and thus I the total covered area of old building and proposed two blocks in the shape of additions to the existing building comes to 513.81 Sq. mtrs. and in terms of the plot area it works out to 54.28% coverage of the plot area. It is also submitted that the distance between Himland Hotel Building and the proposed construction on Khasra Nos. 1588 and 1589 is 12 mtrs. i.e. about 40 feet whereas in the Annexure P-B it is shown to be only 10.60 mtrs. which factually incorrect. The respondent has also stated that the petitioners have not filed their own sanction plans and no measurement or dimensions of their Hotel Building have been given in Annexure P-B. The provisions of F.A.R. are not applicable as plans of additions and alterations were submitted prior to 11.3.1995 when relevant notification Annexure R-4/L was issued. which factually incorrect. The respondent has also stated that the petitioners have not filed their own sanction plans and no measurement or dimensions of their Hotel Building have been given in Annexure P-B. The provisions of F.A.R. are not applicable as plans of additions and alterations were submitted prior to 11.3.1995 when relevant notification Annexure R-4/L was issued. It is also submitted that the petitioners have no concern whatsoever in respect of the building being constructed on Khasra No. 1591 as it is far away from their building. Moreover, there is no provision of making any angle in the present building bye-laws of Municipal Corporation, Shimla and the angle worked out in the Annexure P-B is done by giving wrong distance. Counter allegation has been made against petitioner No. 3 in the reply affidavit stating that he is to be blamed for conjestion in parking for the reasons that all his customers parked their vehicles on the road as there is no sufficient space for parking left by him. The allegations of obstructing the light, air and sunshine of the petitioners by the proposed construction are also disputed and it is submitted that when the distance between both the building is about 40 feet and the respondent is only constructing a four storeyed building at the site, there is no obstruction of alleged light, air and sunshine to the petitioners. The respondent has also stated that it has already awarded a contract for construction to Shri Udho Ram for Rs. 35 lacs who has also engaged labour and material worth lacs of rupees and has also undertaken construction activities at full swing on Khasra Nos. 1588 and 1589 and that the said Contractor had also laid two slabs and on Khasra No. 1591 he had come out of the foundation. Lastly, it is submitted that it is a time bound contract and if the construction is stopped it will lead to huge irreparable loss to the Corporation-respondent No. 4 and would invite unnecessary litigation with the Contractor. 6. Three sets of rejoinder to the written statements filed by the contesting respondents have been filed by the petitioners. Lastly, it is submitted that it is a time bound contract and if the construction is stopped it will lead to huge irreparable loss to the Corporation-respondent No. 4 and would invite unnecessary litigation with the Contractor. 6. Three sets of rejoinder to the written statements filed by the contesting respondents have been filed by the petitioners. In preliminary submissions of the rejoinder filed to the reply of respondents No. 1 and 2 it is alleged that respondent No. 3-Corporation in collusion and in connivance with respondents No. 1 and 2 has failed to place on record the various applications for seeking sanction in respect of constructions carried out by respondent No. 4 along with the plans submitted and also sanctioned by the respondents and the respondents have evaded to answer specific grounds to the effect that the F.A.R. is applicable in the present case and if applied, the proposed construction could neither be sanctioned nor constructed. It has also been stated that respondent No. 4-Corporation has not at all kept any set back from the boundary of their plots adjoining the road nor they have set back any dry area kept between the earlier constructed seven storeyed office block and the present proposed construction. They have also alleged that the building in question does not fall within the purview of public utility/service building and the relaxation, if any, can only be given by a Competent Authority as prescribed under the relevant provisions of law which admittedly has not been accorded in the present case and, therefore, the same can be presumed to exist in favour of respondent No. 4-Corporation. F.A.R. principle was introduced by the amendment to the Interim Development Plan, Shimla which was notified on 27.3.1995 marked Annexure PD to the rejoinder filed in reply to respondent No. 4 and in the present case, the so called sanctioned has been accorded by respondent No. 2 on 24th August, 1995 much after the amended provisions introducing the F.A.R. had been made applicable to construction within the Shimla Planning Area and thus, the F.A.R. principles introduced by the amendment should have been applied in the present case by respondent No. 2. 7. 7. In the rejoinder filed to the reply of respondent No. 3-Corporation it is submitted that F.A.R. applicable in the present case has not been applied by 3rd respondent-Corporation nor has it cared to see that respondent No. 4-Corporation has not at atll kept any set back from the boundary of their plots adjoining the road nor have the set back and dry area kept between the earlier constructed seven storeyed office block and the present proposed construction and the respondent-Corporation accorded sanction only after considering the letter dated 15.7.1996 addressed by the Managing Director of respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 3 and as a matter of fact, no where in the sanction has it been stated that the building plans, if any, were considered at all. It is also alleged that respondent No. 3-Corporation has not denied the specific allegations of violation of bye-laws of the Corporation and, therefore, the allegations made in the writ petition deemed to have been admitted. It is further alleged that the area in question falls under the residential zone as prescribed and provided in the provisions of the Interim Development Plan (IDP) for Shimla and, therefore, it naturally follows that no sanction for any office complex or office could have ever been afforded or given by respondents No. 1 to 3 in favour of respondent No. 4-Corporation; that under the National Building Code, it is mandatory to provide an expansion joint after every 40 mtrs. of the length of the building in case an additions or alterations are to be made and proposed expansion could not have been permitted or allowed as admittedly the completion plans for the existing seven storeyed office complex was sanctioned and its completion on 27.2.1986. 8. Almost similar averments were made in the rejoinder filed to the reply of respondent No. 4-Corporation which were taken in the rejoinder filed to the reply of respondents No. 1 to 3 by the petitioners. However, it is further stated in their rejoinder that amendment 3 to sub-regulation (e) of Regulation 10.4.1.4(A) has been substituted and the coverage and height limitations have been incorporated therein under the Floor Area Ratio which has been mandatorily provided thereunder and the F.A.R. being applicable as from 27th March, 1995, the present proposed construction of respondent No. 4-Corporation could not have been granted any sanction by respondents No. 1 to 3. Allegations have also been made to the effect that respondents No. 3 and 4 have purposely failed to place on record complete set of the copies of the sanctioned plans mentioned in letter dated 28.1.1976 Annexure R-4/ A and plan marked Annexure R-4/K does not depict the correct picture as the building other than existing seven storeyed structure have not been reflected therein and thereby respondents No. 3 and 4 have deliberately concealed two complete sets of the plan from the Court. The petitioners have also stated that the respondents have failed to place on record the original application made to the 3rd respondent-Corporation as also the objection raised by the Town and Country Planning Department in their letter dated 31.8.1994 marked Annexure R-4/1. It is also submitted that from the perusal of Annexure R-4/ D/2 it is seen that while submitting the plans, respondent No. 4-Corporation has purposely mislead respondents No. 2 and 3 in so far as exact location of Hotel Himland West is concerned. Any fresh construction on the adjoining Khasra No. 1590 cannot be considered or deemed to be an addition to the existing structure and dry area between the existing building and proposed construction on Khasra Nos. 1588, 1589 and 1591 had to be kept in the mandatory manner of three meters and similarly inter se between the building to be constructed on the said three khasra numbers. However, it is emphatically denied that the distance between Himland Hotel building and the proposed construction is 12 mtrs. and it is reiterated that it is 10.60 mtrs. It is also submitted that in the Interim Development Plan for Shimla area described the area in question and limits its use to residence, no fresh construction either by way of proposed additions or alterations, or by way of new construction can be. sanctioned or permitted for an office complex and, therefore, the building sanctioned plan deserves to be quashed on all the grounds taken in the writ petition. 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the documents placed on record in detail. Mr. sanctioned or permitted for an office complex and, therefore, the building sanctioned plan deserves to be quashed on all the grounds taken in the writ petition. 9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined the documents placed on record in detail. Mr. R.L. Sood, learned Counsel for the petitioners raised eight contentions, namely, (a) that as per the provisions of the Building Regulations of the Town and Country Planning Department, a maximum number of four storeyed can legally be permitted to be raised in the area subject to F.A.R. which has to be maintained; (b) that according to the building bye-laws of the 3rd respondent-Corporation the F.A.R. of the area of the land owned by respondent No. 4 is more than the area owned by respondent No. 4 and the proposed construction is in gross violation to the building norms of the 3rd respondent-Corporation and Town and Country Planning Department; (c) that adequate parking has not been provided by respondent No. 4-Corporation while carrying out the construction which is mandatory under the existing building norms of respondents No. 2 and 3 and there is violation to the norms by respondent No. 4-Corporation; (d) that the area where the proposed construction is carried out is a residential area notified under Shimla Interim Development Plan and no office complex can be permitted to be built there; (e) that as per the Building Regulations of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Department a minimum of 2.50 mtrs. set back is required to be left from the road/ path which should be itself of a minimum width of 3.05 mtrs. and such set backs have not been provided in the proposed construction; (f) that as per the Regulations of respondent No. 2, a maximum distance of 2.50 mtrs. set back is required to be left from the road/ path which should be itself of a minimum width of 3.05 mtrs. and such set backs have not been provided in the proposed construction; (f) that as per the Regulations of respondent No. 2, a maximum distance of 2.50 mtrs. had to be maintained between the present proposed construction and existing seven storeyed building and no such distance has also been provided for or kept by respondent No. 4; (g) that under the National Building Code it is mandatory to provide an expansion joint after every 40 meters of the length of the building which has also not been done in the present case and (h) that the proposed construction if permitted shall completely block the light, air and view of the existing building of petitioner No. 2 as well as to the flat of petitioner No. 1 and under the National Building Code, an angle of 19.50 degree is required to be maintained at the maximum in between two buildings and under the building bye-laws of respondent No. 3-Corporation such an angle has to be of 37-1/2 degree at the maximum and no construction beyond such angle can be permitted to be constructed by respondent No. 4-Corporation. 10. The learned Counsel for the contesting respondents have vehemently urged that the plan for the additions and alterations of the proposed construction carried out by respondent No. 4-Corporation has been sanctioned by the competent authorities strictly in accordance with the provisions laid down in building bye-laws of the 3rd respondent-Corporation and IDP and the sanctioning authorities have not violated any provision of law and, therefore, the allegations of the petitioners made in the writ petition are misconceived and mis-placed. They contended that all the authorities have considered the plans submitted by respondent No. 4 for the proposed construction after verifying all the facts and considering the provisions of law applicable in the present case, 11. We have perused the copies of the plans marked Annexures R-4/D-1 to E-4/D-7 submitted by the 4th respondent-Corporation to the Director Town and Country Planning and Commissioner, Municipal Corporation for sanction. In all these plans the existing old building and the proposed construction of additions and alterations have been clearly indicated showing the measurement of the plot area covered for construction and front and rear set backs besides reserving parking place. In all these plans the existing old building and the proposed construction of additions and alterations have been clearly indicated showing the measurement of the plot area covered for construction and front and rear set backs besides reserving parking place. The plan for old building was sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation, Shimla vide Order No. 53 dated 28.1.1976 marked Annexure R-4/A and R-4/B and the completion plan was sanctioned by the same authority vide order No. 103 dated 27.2.1986 marked Annexures R-4/C. 4th respondent-Corporation applied to the Director, Town and Country Planning, Himachal Pradesh for sanction of the plan of the proposed additions and alterations which was sanctioned and the sanction was accorded by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 22.8.1995 marked Annexure R-4/D. While granting the sanction by the 2nd respondent, some conditions have been imposed that the building construction operation shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved building plan and front set back and tear set back respectively should be kept per meter as per the approved plan. In the approved plan referred to above, 4th respondent-Corporation has given the details of the set backs as per requirement of the building Regulations of the 2nd respondent and after satisfying himself the 2nd respondent accorded the sanction. However, we may observe here that the 2nd respondent made some observations vide his letter dated 31.8.1994 marked Annexure R-4/H before permission for construction of building/ sub-division of land could be granted to the 4th respondent-Corporation. One of the observation was that set backs on right left and rear side should be 2.5 mtrs. After removing the objections, the Managing Director of 4th respondent-Corporation re-submitted the application to the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 19.11.1994 marked Annexure R-4/I with three sets of the drawings and completion plan letter from Municipal Corporation, Shimla (Photocopy). Thereafter the Commissioner of 3rd respondent sanctioned the building construction plan of the 4th respondent-Corporation on 22.8.1996 vide order marked Annexure R-4/E. It has been mentioned in the said order that permission of additions and alterations of the building of the 4th respondent has been considered and all the departments of the Corporation have recommended the issuance of permission and thereafter the plan was sanctioned. The 4th respondent got a technical report and the site plan prepared from the senior Architect which are placed on record marked Annexures R-4/J and R-4/A respectively. The 4th respondent got a technical report and the site plan prepared from the senior Architect which are placed on record marked Annexures R-4/J and R-4/A respectively. In this report it is observed that the report submitted by Shri S.C. Rai filed as Annexure RB is not factually correct and it is stated that the additions are approved from both i.e. Municipal Corporation, Shimla and Town and Country Planning Department and the additions approved are for four storeyed- In this report area statement has been specified and total covered area proposed and existing is 513 Sq. mtrs. which is 54.28% of the plot area which is well within the permissible limits of the covered area. It is also stated that provisions of F.A.R. are not applicable in this case as the plans for additions and alterations were submitted prior to 11.3.1995 before the notification of the State Government Annexure R-4/L was issued on 13th June, 1995. In this report it is also specified that the distance between the two buildings at the point of additions on left hand side is 12.00 mtrs. average and this was also depicted in the site plan marked Annexure R-4/A and not 10.60 mtrs. as has been indicated in the report Annexure P-B submitted by the petitioners. Again it is stated in this report that the width of the road in front of the existing office building is 4.50 (AV) instead of 3.00 mtrs. as indicated in the report by Shri S.C. Rai submitted by the petitioners and the provisions of extra space for parking has been made in the additions to the existing office building of 4th respondent on left hand side and right hand side at road level. From the perusal of site plan Annexure R-4/A the distance between the proposed additions and existing building of Hotel Himland West has been shown 12.45 mtrs. and not 10.60 mtrs. as alleged by the petitioners in their writ petition. The Interim Development Plan was approved by the State Government under Section 17(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 and came in operation from the date of its publication in the official Gazette. and not 10.60 mtrs. as alleged by the petitioners in their writ petition. The Interim Development Plan was approved by the State Government under Section 17(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 and came in operation from the date of its publication in the official Gazette. In letter dated 30th June, 1995 (Annexure R-4/L) issued by the State Government to the 2nd respondent it has been specifically stated that cases pending with the department on or before the publication of IDP shall have to be disposed of in accordance with the Interim Development Plan in force immediately before such amendment. Notification of amendment in the Interim Development Plan for Shimla area was published in the Rajpatra of Himachal Pradesh on 11th March, 1995. Amendment No. 2 in Regulation No. 10.4.1.2 after sub-regulation No. (XII) was made and in sub-regulation No (XV) it is added that on a corner plot bounded by a vehicular road in an} zone, nothing shall be erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow in such a manner so as to materially impede vision to avoid accidents. Amendment to sub-regulation (e) of Regulation 10.4.1.4(A) F.A.R. was inserted for coverage and height limitation for plot size in Sq. meters. For plots having side above 500 Sq. meters generally it is 1.00 and in note No. 1 meaning of F.A.R. is ratio between the net area of the plot and the total floor area of all the floors of the building i.e. Total covered area of all floors. Plot area. In note No. 2 (b) it is stated that in case of corner plots width of plot and side set back shall be increased by 2.00 meters for providing proper sight distance on the curve. The moot question for our consideration is whether the amendment made in sub-regulation (e) of Regulation 10.4.1.4(A) whereby F.A.R. principles has been applied will be applicable in this case or not. Concedingly, in the present case, the plan of the 4th respondent-Corporation was pending with the Sanctioning Authorities prior to 11.3.1995 although the plan was sanctioned by respondent No. 2 on 22.8.1995 after the enforcement of the amendment in the Interim Development Plan for Shimla Area. 12. Mr. Concedingly, in the present case, the plan of the 4th respondent-Corporation was pending with the Sanctioning Authorities prior to 11.3.1995 although the plan was sanctioned by respondent No. 2 on 22.8.1995 after the enforcement of the amendment in the Interim Development Plan for Shimla Area. 12. Mr. R.L. Sood, learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the respondents No. 2 and 3 ought to have not sanctioned the plan for construction of the proposed building of respondent No. 4-Corporation on the basis of the earlier provisions and the amended provisions were applicable in the present case and, therefore, F.A.R. principles will be applicable and the sanctioned plan deserves to be quashed. He has cited a passage on retrospective operation of the construction of the statute from the Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Shri G.P. Singh 2nd Edition 1975 at page 270 to contend that unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect existing rights, it is "deemed to be prospective only". In other words of Lord Blanesburg, "provisions which touch a right in existence at the passing of the statute are not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendrnent". "Every statute, it has been said", observed Lopes L.J. : "which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions already past, must be presumed to be intended not to have a retrospective effect." On page 271 of the book reliance is placed upon the passage which reads, "In certain cases, a distinction is drawn between an existing right and a vested right and it is said that the rule against retrospective construction is applied only to save vested rights and not existing rights." He contended that respondent No. 4-Corporation has only existing right and not vested right of sanction of plan and in this case it is a public interest vested rights and personal rights of respondent No. 4 cannot override the public interest and for making the amendment in the Interim Development Plan in the interest of the public the operation of the amendment is retrospective as the construction also relates to the environment and ecology of the town. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on State of Bombay v. Vishnu Ramchandra (AIR 1961 Supreme Court 307). In that case the question before the Apex Court was whether externment order of offender under Section 57 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 based on past actions of offender committed before the coming into force of the Act would be prospective or retrospective. To answer that question, the Honble Mr. Justice M. Hidayatullah, J. held that penal statutes which create new offences are always prospective. But penal statutes which create disabilities or statutes which create no new punishment but authorise some action based on past conduct may be interpreted retrospectively when there is a clear intendment that they are to be applied to past events. Again, an Act designed to protect the public against acts of a harmful character may be construed retrospectively, if the language admits of such an interpretation, even though it may equally have a prospective meaning. Reliance is also placed on Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Limited v. Income Tax Commissioner (AIR 1927 Privy Council 242); Anant Gopal Sheorey v. State of Bombay (AIR 1958 Supreme Court 915) and Trimbak Darnodhar Rajpurkar v. Assaram Hiraman Patil and others (AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1758). We have read all these decisions minutely and we are of the view that the ratio of the decisions are not applicable in the facts of the present case. As noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, the Government has categorically stated that all cases pending with the 2nd respondent on or before the publication of the amendment in IDP in the Rajpatra, shall have to be disposed of in accordance with the IDP in force immediately before such amendment, There is a clear cut intention of the State Government that the operation of the amended provisions of IDP will be applicable only after its publication in the official Rajpatra and respondents No. 2 and 3 have sanctioned the plan of respondent No. 4 Corporation which was pending before them much prior to the date before the amendment was made enforceable. 13. The learned Advocate General and Mr. 13. The learned Advocate General and Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4-Corporation have strenuously urged that the amendment of the IDP cannot be made applicable retrospectively in nature and rights accrued to respondent No. 4-Corporation at the time of presentation of the application for sanctioning the plan to have the same approved as per law in force on that date cannot be nullified. In support of their contentions, they have relied upon P. Mahendran and others v. State of Karnataka and others (1990 1 Supreme Court Cases 411). In this judgment rules regarding qualification for appointment were amended during the continuance of the process of selection, and the question involved was whether the selection would be made on the basis of unamended rules or the amended rules were retrospective in operation. The Honble Judges of the Apex Court held that unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If a rule is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be construed as prospective only. Further it is observed that in the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. In N.T. Beuin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others (AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1233) it was held in para 11 that : "Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing Rules or Government Orders, and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing Rules and Government Orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallises on the date of publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the matter. Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallises on the date of publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon the language of the Rules and its construction to ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative intent is ascertained either by express provision or by necessary implication, if the amended Rules are not retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with the Rules and orders which were in force on the date of advertisement............................" 14. In Union of India and others v. Dev Raj Gupta and others (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 63, the question before the Apex Court was whether the base year for the calculation of the charges for conversion of the land from the residential to the commercial purpose would be from the date of the application of the parties for permission to convert the user on February 15, 1978 or they were liable to pay charges calculated with reference to the said date and not as the authorities had done with reference to May 25, 1981 when the authority had calculated Additional premium on the footing that the outer limit for granting permission was three months from the date of the receipt of the application. The Honble Judges said that there is no justification for the authority to hold that the additional premium should be calculated from May 27, 1981 as the authorities were expected to process the application as early as possible and not to wait till the end of three months. It was further said that unless there are valid reasons for them to do so or the delay is caused on account of an omission or commission on the part of the applicant, it was not proper to take the end of the three months as the date with reference to which the conversion charges should be calculated. The ratio of this decision squarely apply on all fours to the case on hand. The ratio of this decision squarely apply on all fours to the case on hand. In the present case the authorities have rightly sanctioned the plan of 4th respondent-Corporation in the teeth of the unamended provisions of IDP and, therefore, the principles of F.A.R. will not be applicable and the amended provisions of IDP are held to be applicable prospectively from the date of publication in the official Gazette. The contention of the learned Counsel that the amendment shall be construed retrospectively as it was made for public interest and the personal interest of 3rd respondent-Corporation has not to be seen, is not sustainable for the reason that 3rd respondent-Corporation being Government owned public utility concern is established for providing public and semi-public facilities. 15. Chapter X of IDP for Shimla Planning Area deals with the planning administration. Regulations 10.1.1. prescribes for Zoning Regulations. Under Regulation 10.4.1.2 (xii) number of storeys and set-backs from vehicular pedestrian ways, shall be as given in the Table from the edge of the road (ROW). Serial No. 7 of the Table deals with circular road i.e. Cart Road starting from Victory Tunnel and passing through Bus Stand, Bemloe, Chhota Shimla, St. Bedes Chowk, Long Wood, Ice Skating Rink, Kaithu and joining again the Victory Tunnel. In this Table the minimum set backs-towards Hill side has been mentioned as 7.5 mtrs. and maximum number of storeys to be constructed can be four. Towards valley side minimum set-backs is prescribed 7.5 meters and maximum number of storeys four. Under sub-regulation (xi) of Regulation 10.4.1.2 Director Town and Country Planning has been given power to permit more number of storeys, coverage and density or change of land-use in public interest and in the interest of town design or any material consideration and his decision shall be final. In the present case, the additions and alterations plan has been approved by the 2nd and 3rd respondents for four storeyed building which is in conformity with the Table of sub-regulation (xii) of 10.4.1.2. of IDP and the width of the road in front of the existing building is 4.50 (AV) instead of 3 meters. The distance between the two building at the point of additions on left side is 11.00 meters average from the building of petitioner No. 2. of IDP and the width of the road in front of the existing building is 4.50 (AV) instead of 3 meters. The distance between the two building at the point of additions on left side is 11.00 meters average from the building of petitioner No. 2. The application for sanction of the plan alongwith all documents were presented by 4th respondent-Corporation to 2nd respondent on July 15, 1994 and it remained pending with the authority concerned till it was sanctioned on 22.8.1995. Thus, the plan has been properly sanctioned after complying with the provisions of IDP in force at the relevant time. 16. Regulation 10.4.1.4 deals with each of the land-use zone and sub-regulation (A) deals with Residential Zone and sub-regulation (C) takes care of Public and Semi-public Facilities Zone. Under sub-regulation (C) (a)(iii) land-use are permitted for other public and semi-public facilities as decided on the basis of common usage by the 2nd respondent and under sub-clause (d) number of full storeys in this zone shall not normally exceed five but the 2nd respondent may permit more number of storeys in special cases. Under sub-clause (e) front set back shall be as per the Table given vide 10.4.1.2 (xii) and the set back shall be minimum of three meters on either side and rear set-back shall be minimum of 6 meters. In the present case, respondent No. 4-Corporation has left distance between the proposed block and the building of the petitioners more than 12 meters i.e. 40 feet. From the analysis of these provisions it is clear that there is no restriction under sub-regulation (C) of Regulation 10.4.1.4 that for public and semi-public facilities construction of the building cannot be permitted in this Zone. The submission of the petitioners that 4th respondent-Corporation has constructed the existing official complex within the residential zone is also not sustainable. From the perusal of copies of sanctioned plans marked Annexures R-4/D1 to D-7 we find that the authorities have not committed any violation of the provisions of IDP for Shimla Planning Area or building bye-laws of 3rd respondent-Corporation. The plan has been sanctioned by the authorities concerned for additions and alterations and not for the construction of a new building in accordance with the powers vested with the authorities and after adhering the provisions of the H.P. Town and Country Planning" Act and IDP besides the building bye-laws of 3rd respondent— Corporation. 17. The plan has been sanctioned by the authorities concerned for additions and alterations and not for the construction of a new building in accordance with the powers vested with the authorities and after adhering the provisions of the H.P. Town and Country Planning" Act and IDP besides the building bye-laws of 3rd respondent— Corporation. 17. Ms. Abhilasha Kumari, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Corporation contended that the role of the Corporation is called for after the plan submitted to the Town and Country Planning Department was sanctioned. The 3rd respondent-Corporation then seek for the reports from all the departments of the Corporation and after receipt of the reports the plan of the 4th respondent-Corporation was approved. She urged that there are no specific allegations in the writ petition made by the petitioners regarding any specific violation of the building bye-laws of the Corporation and general statement have been made by the petitioners that there is violation of the building bye-laws is not substantiated by any material placed on record. She has brought to our notice building bye-laws of 1998 of the Corporation. Under bye-laws 41.1 in Bazar area and in all other areas which may be considered to be congested area by the Municipal Corporation every building abutting on the valley side of street shall be constructed so as to be within a building angle or not more than 37-1/2 degree. In case of a building abutting on the other side of a street a building angle of not more than 45 degree shall be allowed. Before 1998 bye-laws, building bye-laws were framed by the Corporation in 1975 a copy of which was shown to us by the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Corporation and the provisions contained in bye-laws 41.1 of 1998, were also in existence in bye-laws No. 7 of part-iii of old bye-laws. Admittedly, no specific reply to sub-para (j) of para 6 of the writ petition has been given by 3rd respondent-Corporation whether the proposed construction of 4th respondent-Corporation has angle of 37-1/2 degree at the maximum or not. Admittedly, no specific reply to sub-para (j) of para 6 of the writ petition has been given by 3rd respondent-Corporation whether the proposed construction of 4th respondent-Corporation has angle of 37-1/2 degree at the maximum or not. It has been specifically stated that there is sufficient gap in between the Himland Hotel and proposed additions of the existing building and as such there will be no blockage of light and air and the sanction was accorded by the Commissioner legally and validly in accordance with building bye-laws as stated in the reply affidavit of the Commissioner and we have no reason to dis-believe the statement made in the reply affidavit and nothing concrete to discredit the said stand has been brought to our notice also. It has been specifically stated by the 1st and 2nd respondents that the permission for additions in the existing building being used as official complex has only been approved as the change of land-use was not involved in the present case and the provisions of IDP for Shimla Planning Area have been meticulously complied with and that front set-back has been left 2.00 meters, and set-back on both sides as well as rear set-back has been proposed 2.50 meters which according to the statements of respondents 1 and 2 are in accordance with the IDP provisions. It has come on the record that the distance between two buildings at the point of additions on left side is 12.00 meters average. It has also come on record that the distance between the proposed construction and the Hotel of petitioner No. 2 is about 12.00 meters average on left hand side and the width of the road in front of the existing building is 4.00 meters (AV). In the teeth of the evidence on record placed by the respondents, it is clear that if respondent No. 4-Corporation is allowed to construct the proposed building, there is no question of blocking of light and air etc. to the Hotel Complex of petitioner No. 2 or to the flat of petitioner No. 1 because the distance between the proposed building and the building pf petitioner No. 2 is more than 12 meters i.e. more than 40 feet. to the Hotel Complex of petitioner No. 2 or to the flat of petitioner No. 1 because the distance between the proposed building and the building pf petitioner No. 2 is more than 12 meters i.e. more than 40 feet. Even that apart such alleged violation of easementary rights are not matters which can be allowed to be agitated in a writ proceedings, at any rate when there has been no violation of the laws regulating construction of the building, as found in this case. The parking facilities have also been provided by 4th respondent-Corporation in the sanctioned plan and the statements of the petitioners to the contrary are not found to be correct and substantiated on record. We may point out that the petitioners have alleged in para 6 (j) of the petition that the proposed construction of 4th respondent-Corporation is contrary to the National Building Code since an angle of 19.50 degree is required to be maintained at the maximum in between two building has not been maintained, no specific reply has been given by the contesting respondents but since we are not inclined to accept the submissions of the petitioners on other grounds, as we find that the plan was sanctioned by the authorities concerned in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, in the absence of specific reply of the respondents, we cannot hold that the National Building Code if it was applicable to the present case was not adhered to by the authorities concerned while sanctioning the plan. If at all it is presumed that there is any violation of the provisions of National Building Code committed by the sanctioning authorities, it cannot be said that respondents No. 1 to 3 in connivance with respondent No. 4-Corporation have sanctioned the plan for construction of the building and the allegations to the contrary made by the petitioners in the writ petition are without any substance which deserve to be rejected. All the submissions and contentions made on behalf of the petitioners fail and therefore, do not merit our acceptance. 18. In the result, for the above-said reasons, we find no force in this writ petition which is, accordingly dismissed. Interim stay granted by this Court shall stand vacated. Costs on parties. Petition dismissed