V. K. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) AN important and interesting question of law relating to the power and jurisdiction of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, is involved for consideration in this appeal files under clause 15 of the letters Patent against the judgment dated 9th September, 1998 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in W. P. No. 1228 of 1998, whereby the writ application filed by the appellants was dismissed. ( 2 ) THE facts indeed are very brief and simple. The appellants are owners of the premises at 9a, Jatindra Mohan Avenue, Calcutta. They applied for sanction of a building plan to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation since they wanted to demolish the existing structure which, according to them, is completely dilapidated and had become unsafe, and that after demolishing the existing structure, they wanted to erect a new multi-storeyed building. The existing structure comprised of an old three storeyed property and the proposed new building was to have a ground plus nine floors. In the course of processing for application for sanction of the building plan, the respondent-Calcutta Municipal Corporation "corporation" for short sent a communication dated 5th May, 1998 to the appellants wherein certain details with regard to a school housed in the existing structure were sought for. The details enquired about included submission of a statement showing the strength of the students sectionwise and the number of classes, the 'no objection' from the guardians of the students in the school, existing position of other tenanted portions with details as were considered necessary, and so on and so forth. For ready reference, the communication dated 5th May, 1998 is reproduced verbatim hereinbelow :-"from : The Calcutta Municipal Corporation city Architect's Deptt. , 10, P. T. Road, Calcutta-1. To shew Prakash Bhattar, 9a, Jatindra Mohan Avenue, calcutta-6. Re : 9a, Jatindra Mohan Avenue. With reference to the plan case in respect of the said premises, this is to inform that the said plan case has been examined in the meeting of M. B. C. The observation and recommendation of the M. B. C. as per item No. 302/92-98 as informed by CMC (B) vide order of dt. 20. 04. 98 : 1. Statement showing the strength of student sectionwise and number of classes is necessary. 2. 20. 04. 98 : 1. Statement showing the strength of student sectionwise and number of classes is necessary. 2. Guardians "no Objection" will be necessary in connection with the temporary and permanent rehabilitation before sanction. ( 3 ) EXISTING use of the other tenanted portions with internal details is necessary. ( 4 ) POSTAL communication is to be made by the CMC with the School Authority for confirmation regarding their acceptance of the proposed rehabilitation indicated in the sanction plan. D. C. (Traffic)'s observation is necessary viz. in connection with the entrance, exist and proposed rehabilitation of the tenanted shops. To arrange a meeting with the school authority preferably in M. M. I. T (B)'s chamber and the resolution of the said meeting shall be placed in the M. B. C meeting. The plain case is deferred on the above grounds which may be resubmitted complying all other above observation. Aggrieved against this communication, the appellant filed a writ application in this court which was dismissed by the learned single Judge, vide judgment dated 9th September, 1998. The order under appeal being very short and brief but pertinent for our purpose reads as under :"this writ petition is directed against the communication dated 5. 5. 98. Evidently the plan case of the writ petitioner was examined by the authority concerned and the petitioner was directed to furnish certain particulars and to make compliance with certain other things as disclosed in the said letter. The questions as raised in the said letter are all related to facts and this writ court cannot go into the same for the purpose of adjudication. Furthermore, it has not been disputed that a school is running in the premises in question and the requirements sought for by the CMC from the writ petitioner are for the greater interest of the students of the school. Therefore, interference with the said notice in this writ jurisdiction at this stage is not called for. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. " ( 5 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, a part of the old existing structure houses a secondary school there. It is the case of the appellants that the strength of the school is 200 students. Therefore, interference with the said notice in this writ jurisdiction at this stage is not called for. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. " ( 5 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, a part of the old existing structure houses a secondary school there. It is the case of the appellants that the strength of the school is 200 students. The appellants' further case is that the appellants have entered into an arrangement with the School Authorities whereby the School Authorities have agreed to vacate the building once the construction of the newly proposed building starts and thereafter as soon as the construction is completed, the school would return to the earmarked first floor portion of the newly completed building. This is as far as the appellants are concerned. ( 6 ) DESPITE the aforesaid arrangement having been made and entered into between the appellants and the School, and duly communicated by the appellants to the Corporation, by the impugned communication dated 5th May, 1998, the Corporation insists that before it processes the application for sanction of the building plan any further, it would like to have the detailed information as contained in the communication dated 5th May, 1998. The appellants say that the Corporation has no power to ask for such information because the provisions of 1980 Act do not give any such power to the Corporation. ( 7 ) CHAPTER-XXII of the 1980 Act deals with the subject-matter of the construction, erection and re-erection of the buildings. As per section 392, no person shall erect or commence to erect any building or execute any of the works specified in section 390 except with the previous sanction of the Municipal Commissioner and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter-XXII of 1980 Act. As per section 396, the Municipal Commissioner is obliged to sanction erection of a building unless erection of the building contravences any of the provisions contained in sections 405 or 406 of 1980 Act. Section 396 further provides that the sanction of a building or a work may be refused on any of the grounds provided in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (2) thereof. The Municipal Building Committee is the creation of section 391 of 1980 Act. Under sub-section (5) of section 391, the Municipal Building Committee has been given the power to scrutinise every plan for erection or re-erection of a building. The Municipal Building Committee is the creation of section 391 of 1980 Act. Under sub-section (5) of section 391, the Municipal Building Committee has been given the power to scrutinise every plan for erection or re-erection of a building. It also provides that during such scrutiny, the Municipal Building Committee shall consider matters relating to preserving, developing and maintaining the aesthetic quality of urban and environmental design within Calcutta and shall in respect of any building or any execution of work, if it affects or is likely to affect the skyline or the aesthetic quality of urban and environmental design or any public amenity therein. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1990 have been framed under 1980 Act. In these Rules, detailed provisions are contained regarding the procedure for submission of a plan for grant of sanction and the matters related thereto. In Rule 16, there is a provision whereby the Municipal Commissioner has been empowered to refuse sanction for erection or re-erection of a building on the grounds mentioned therein. One of such grounds is that the construction of the newly proposed building may adversely affect any public amenity in the city of Calcutta. ( 8 ) MR. L. C. Behani, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, argued that undoubtedly the Corporation under 1980 Act is not concerned with any landlord-tenant dispute while considering or processing an application for erection or re-erection of a building. But in the present case, the Corporation's concern primarily rests on the welfare of the children standing in the School, which is housed presently in a part of the existing building. Mr. Behani is relying on section 30 of 1980 Act to buttress his submission that it is one of the discretionary functions of the Corporation to ensure that the interests of students studying in a school are not jeopardised and that the cause of education is promoted by ensuring that the school's functioning does not suffer. ( 9 ) SECTION 29 of the 1980 Act relates to the discharge of obligatory functions of the Corporation whereby the Corporation has been obliged to provide civic services including water supply, sewerage and drainage. Under section 30 of the said Act, some discretionary functions are vested in the Corporation for being performed. ( 9 ) SECTION 29 of the 1980 Act relates to the discharge of obligatory functions of the Corporation whereby the Corporation has been obliged to provide civic services including water supply, sewerage and drainage. Under section 30 of the said Act, some discretionary functions are vested in the Corporation for being performed. The relevant extract of section 30 reads as under :"discretionary functions of the Corporation : Subject to the availability of resource, the Corporation may, at its discretion, provide either wholly or in part for all or any of the following matters : (a) The furtherance of education (including cultural and physical education) and sports and the establishment and maintenance of, and aid to, schools for primary education. " ( 10 ) CONSIDERATION of a request through the medium of an application for permission to erect a building is the obligation of the Corporation. Such a request has to be considered and processed in accordance with the procedure prescribed in 1990 Rules. Substantively speaking, the request for erection or re-erection has to be considered in the light of the provisions contained in Chapter-XXII of 1980 Act. Section 396 is the substantive provision which empowers the Municipal Corporation to consider such a request and either to allow it or refuse the same on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) thereof. Similarly, section 391 whereby a Municipal Building Committee is required to be constituted provides broad parameters, specially those contained in sub-section (5) thereof, based on which Municipal Building Committee may proceed to consider and then to either grant, or refuse such a request. Similarly in 1990 Rules, detailed para-meters and guideline have been provided and prescribed under which a request for erection or re-erection, or construction of a building has to be considered, the same either being granted, or refused. As has been clearly held in a series of judgments, including a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Kumada Sundari Properties v. Namdang Tea Co. Ltd. reported in 1985 (II) CHN p. 137, it is not the concern of the Corporation, while considering a request received under Chapter XXII of 1980 Act, to see whether a tenant in occupation of a building proposed to be demolished is to be evicted or not. Ltd. reported in 1985 (II) CHN p. 137, it is not the concern of the Corporation, while considering a request received under Chapter XXII of 1980 Act, to see whether a tenant in occupation of a building proposed to be demolished is to be evicted or not. Eviction of a tenant from a building, even in respect of which a sanction has been granted for reconstruction, is the subject matter of concern under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956. To the same effect is a single Bench Judgment of this court in M/s. Circular Investment Trust Private Limited and Anr. v. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Ors. reported in Calcutta Law Times 1991 (2) HC 460. ( 11 ) ONCE therefore an application is received by the Corporation with regard to the sanction for construction, erection or re-erection of a building, the Corporation is required to process the same and accord consideration in accordance with the provisions of 1980 Act and the 1990 Building Rules. It has to see and find out whether the request of the applicant is in conformity with the provisions of 1980 Act and the 1990 Rules and whether the proposed building is to be constructed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XXII of 1980 Act, any other relevant and applicable provision of the said Act and the 1990 Building Rules. If the application conforms with such requirement, the Corporation has no option but to grant sanction in favour of the applicant within the statutory period. If however, in the process of scrutinizing and considering the application, the Corporation finds that the same is not in conformity with the aforesaid legal and statutory provisions, it has a right to reject the same and refuse to grant sanction for construction, erection or re-erection of a Building. While doing so, the Corporation is supposed to apply its mind to the Plan submitted by the applicant with regard to the proposed construction and to find out whether the proposed Plan suffers from any such legal infirmity which is in violation of 1980 Act or 1990 Building Rules. While doing so, the Corporation is supposed to apply its mind to the Plan submitted by the applicant with regard to the proposed construction and to find out whether the proposed Plan suffers from any such legal infirmity which is in violation of 1980 Act or 1990 Building Rules. While therefore according consideration to the request of an applicant for sanction of a Building Plan, it is not open to the Corporation to import into the consideration process any extraneous element which either has no relevance to the concept of construction as such or is not borne out directly from the provisions of 1980 Act and 1990 Building Rules. Importing into the consideration process any such extraneous element, which is de hors 1980 Act or 1990 Building Rules will amount to not only an exercise beyond the jurisdiction, power and authority vested in the Corporation under 1980 Act, but may also amount to an abuse of the process of law. Corporation is the creature of 1980 Act and has to work within the parameters of such law. It cannot assume or arrogate to itself a role not stipulated or granted to it by 1980 Act. It cannot embark upon an exercise not warranted under 1980 Act. The purpose of 1980 Act is to help the citizens in their day-to-day civic affairs and in daily, chores of life. Construction of buildings is an universally accepted right of a citizen with respect to his property. The exercise of such a right of construction is subject to, again universally accepted, principle of prior approval from a civic authority. The paramount need of obtaining such prior approval is to ensure that the buildings in a particular urban area are constructed in accordance with such policy guidelines which ensure not only aesthetic urban environment but also are in keeping with the pace of life, needs of the citizens, lack or provision of civic amenities, growing needs of people, pressure on facilities, infrastructure and amenities, and the ever-growing congestion because of the bursting of the population at the seams. It is in this backdrop that we all acknowledge the paramount supremacy of the role required to be played by a civil authority in observing and implementing the statutory provisions mandated by the Legislature with regard to the construction of buildings, and, in given cases of laying down broad guidelines and fixing parameters in furtherence of such statutory requirements as are prescribed by the Legislature to ensure better life for the citizens and a planned urban environment. Even while such a role is acknowledged and duly recognized, it cannot be a licence for the civic authority to either impose such unreasonable curbs or such arbitrary restrictions which are either de hors such statutory requirements or do not further the cause for which the civic Authority is created. ( 12 ) IN processing and considering a request for grant of sanction for construction of building, the sole concern of the Corporation should be to ensure that the application is in accordance with the provisions of 1980 Act and 1990 Building Rules and that the Plan submitted by the applicant for proposed construction conforms to the statutory requirements as contained in the Act and the Rules. If because of the demolition of an existing structure, on account of the proposed construction of a new building in its place, a School or, for that matter a Dispensary or, a Yoga Centre or may be an Art Gallery might have to be dislocated or would be shifted to some other place, should not be the concern of the Corporation, its role limited as it is, only to consider whether the application for construction is in accordance with the law and the Rules and not whether because of the demolition and the proposed construction some one, institutionally or individually, is likely to be adversely affected. ( 13 ) IF we examine, in the aforesaid background, the act of the Corporation in insisting upon the appellants to provide information regarding the affairs of the School which is tenant in the building owned by the appellants, we find that such insistence is wholly mis-placed and totally out of context as far as the law is concerned. ( 13 ) IF we examine, in the aforesaid background, the act of the Corporation in insisting upon the appellants to provide information regarding the affairs of the School which is tenant in the building owned by the appellants, we find that such insistence is wholly mis-placed and totally out of context as far as the law is concerned. When we talk of Law, we find that nowhere either in the 1980 Act or in the 1990 Building Rules is it provided that it shall be a part of the duty of the Corporation, while considering an application for grant of sanction with regard to construction of building that affairs related to an Educational Institution shall also be taken into account and that it shall be the duty of the Corporation, while considering such an application to ensure that either in the act of demolition of the building or in the act of reconstruction, the interests of an Educational Institution are likely to be jeopardised. The object seemingly and apparently may be very noble and highly commendable, but then every statutory authority has to act within the statutory parameters. A School, which admittedly is a tenant in a building has a Governing Body which manages the affairs of the School. The School eviction is protected by the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. Whether the School decides to vacate a building or chooses to enter into an arrangement with the owner is for the School itself to decide. It the School is entering into an unholy agreement with the owner, it is for the school Authorities to face the consequence. If the students feel threatened by any contemplated action of the School Authorities it is for the students or their guardians to take a precipitate action. In the case before us none of such events has taken place. It is not the case of the Corporation that it is acting as the harbinder of the interests of the School because the School Authorities or the students or their guardians have complained to the Corporation against the appellants. ( 14 ) MR. Bihani while relying upon section 30 of the 1980 Act has argued that one of the discretionary functions of the Corporation is to promote primary education in the city of Calcutta and it was in keeping with this spirit, which according to Mr. ( 14 ) MR. Bihani while relying upon section 30 of the 1980 Act has argued that one of the discretionary functions of the Corporation is to promote primary education in the city of Calcutta and it was in keeping with this spirit, which according to Mr. Bihani actually has been borrowed from the spirit contained in Part-IV of the Constitution that the Corporation, in the process of considering the appellant's application insisted on being provided with the detailed information as asked for in the impugned communication dated 5th May, 1998. We fail to appreciate the reasoning or logic of the argument when viewed and considered in the light of the provisions contained in 1980 Act. As noticed earlier, section 29 of the Act deals with the performance of obligatory functions of the Corporation, which include provision of civic services and amenities including water-supply, sewerage and drainage. If the events in the past fortnight leading to the complete breakdown of Sewage and drainage systems in the City, in the aftermonth of a comple of spells of rains are any indication, we cannot say with any degree of certainty as to whether the corporation is indeed performing these obligatory functions or not. However, in so far as the performance of its discretionary functions is concerned, coming back to section 30 of the Act, actually we have to say that this section has no bearing or applicability whatsoever where it comes to processing an application for construction of a new building in place of an old structure, a part whereof has a school in it. The very opening words of section 30, viz. "subject to the availability of the recources", mean clearly that the performance of the discretionary functions has to be undertaken by the Corporation itself through its own funds. In other words, what section 30 conveys is that if the Corporation has resources, it may provide either wholly or in part, matters relating to furtherence of education and, inter alia, establishment and maintenance of Primary Schools, or grant aid to such Primary School. A bare reading of section 30 suggests that nothing more than that is required to be done by the Corporation. A bare reading of section 30 suggests that nothing more than that is required to be done by the Corporation. Whether a School, being a tenant of the owner in a building proposed to be demolished is evicted from that building or not, or whether in a given case, there is an arrangement between the owner of the building and the School occupier about the School vacating temporarily a part of such building, are such subjects which are totally alien to the concept of the grant or refusal of permission under Chapter XXII of 1980 Act, read with the entire gamut of 1990 Rules and section 30 of the Act having no bearing or applicability cannot be relied upon for raising such an objection since it does not confer any such power upon the Corporation. ( 15 ) WE have very carefully gone through the affidavit-in-opposition filed in the writ court on behalf of the Corporation and find that the Corporation has quiet unncessarily taken upon itself the burden of bothering about the School with regard to its fear of the withdrawal of recognition, from the government if the address of the School is changed. The Corporation is required to function within the strict parameters of its power and exercise jurisdiction as given to it in law under 1980 Act. It is no part of the Corporation's function under 1980 Act to find out as to what would happen to a School if its management decides to vacate temporarily the building which the building's owner may propose to reconstruct. Whether the recognition of the School is withdrawn or not, is again a case of concern of worry for the owner, management and students of the School. It may be at some stage or under some situation a matter of concern for the public, but all this does not mean that this can be a reason or a ground which the Corporation can legitimately take into account while considering the application filed by an intending builder for new construction of a proposed building. In fact, when we looked into the impugned communication dated 5th October, 1998 we found that such details were asked for from the appellants which were wholly irrelevant and had no connection whatsoever either with the processing of the application or for consideration thereto. In fact, when we looked into the impugned communication dated 5th October, 1998 we found that such details were asked for from the appellants which were wholly irrelevant and had no connection whatsoever either with the processing of the application or for consideration thereto. Take for instance the requirement relating to the appellants' giving statement showing the strength of students sectionwise, and the number of classes. We fail to understand how is the Corporation concerned, while processing an application for construction of a new building to find out as to how many sections are there in a School and what is the number of classes, and why should the Corporation insist upon the guardians of the students giving "no objection" to the owners of the building. Surely the Corporation is not concerned with, whether the School moves out of a particular building or does not move. In fact, despite Mr. Bihani's very fair statement that the Corporation is not actually concerned with any landlord-tenant dispute, para (3) of the impugned communication does suggest oblique intention of the Corporation to enter into such a dispute since this para does require the appellants to furnish details regarding existing use of the other tenanted portions with all the details being necessary. The requirements contained in paragraphs (4) and (6) of the said communication are no similar lines, and as a matter of fact are suggestive of the Corporation's intention of thwarting the construction plan, rather than showing any real interest for the welfare of the students. Why should, for instance the Corporation be insisting for postal communication with the School authorities, rather than endeavour to meet the School authorities directly and obtaining confirmation from them whether the arrangement between them and the appellants has actually been worked out or not. By this we do not at all intend to suggest that the existence of any such internal arrangement was at all required necessary as far as the application for grant of sanction was concerned. By this we do not at all intend to suggest that the existence of any such internal arrangement was at all required necessary as far as the application for grant of sanction was concerned. From what we have observed, therefore it becomes clear that any matter relating to the functioning of the School in the part of the building proposed to be demolished, whether it concerns the vacation of the building by the School authorities or any temporary arrangement as agreed to between the School authorities and the appellants, is totally outside the purview of Chapter XXII of 1980 Act, 1990 Building Rules or any other provisions of 1980 Act relating to the consideration of the application for grant of sanction for construction of a new building or matters directly related thereto. Whether the request for grant of sanction for construction has to be refused, or granted, has to be decided in accordance with the provisions of law as contained in Chapter 22 of 1980 Act and 1990 Rules. The Corporation cannot traverse beyond these mandatory statutory provisions and embark upon an enquiry or conduct an exercise which is wholly alien to such statutory provisions which has neither any nexus with the object of consideration as sought to be achieved nor does it in any manner relate, directly or indirectly, to any object which might be required to be achieved in furtherence to any such consideration. ( 16 ) ANOTHER point which Mr. Behani urged may also be taken note of before we conclude. Mr. Behani's contention is that under Rule 16 of 1990 Rules the Corporation can refuse to grant sanction for the erection of a building on the ground that such erection may adversely affect any public amenity in the City of Calcutta. Mr. Behani says that the existence of the School in the Building sought to be demolished is a public amenity and the closure or the shifting of the School would adversely affect such public amenity in the City of Calcutta. and therefore, being squarely covered by Rule 16 (supra), the Corporation is within its rights to refuse to grant sanction for such erection of the Building. and therefore, being squarely covered by Rule 16 (supra), the Corporation is within its rights to refuse to grant sanction for such erection of the Building. The argument is totally fallacious because the expression "public amenity" as occurring in Rule 16 may partake of any meaning but it cannot include the functioning of a private school in a private building, the School being wholly owned or managed by a private Institution. The expression "public amenity" has other meanings and connotations attached to it. ( 17 ) IN our view, therefore, the learned single Judge was not correct in dismissing the writ application. In fact, the observations in the judgment under appeal that some disputed questions of fact were involved are not at all correct because as we have noticed in details, no disputed fact at all is involved in this case and the entire case relates to pure questions of law concerning the power, authority and jurisdiction of the Corporation, as in relation to the provisions of 1980 Act and 1990 Building Rules. ( 18 ) THE appeal, accordingly is allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. The Corporation, by issuance of writ of Mandamus, is directed to consider the application of the appellants for the construction of the new building in accordance with the observations contained in this judgment, strictly in accordance with the provisions of law, specially those contained in Chapter-XXII of the 1980 Act and the 1990 Building Rules and pass appropriate order on the merits of the case within two months from today and communicate the same to the appellants. To that extent, therefore, the impugned communication dated 5th May, 1998 is also quashed and set aside. There will be no order as to costs. Let a xerox copy of this Judgment duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar of this court be given to the parties upon their undertaking to apply for and obtain certified copy of the same upon usual undertaking. G. C. De, J.-I agree. Appeal allowed .