O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) IN an attempt to promote and boost tourism in the holy city of Varanasi, which is already on the tourist map of the country, a number of projects have come up. The World Bank has also sanctioned substantial amount to bring Varanasi on International Tourist Map of the world. Construction of new hotels is the integral part of the promotion of tourism. The petitioner-company, i. e. , M/s. Khurram Carpets Pvt. Ltd. is having a tie with Raddison Group of hotels and with a view to construct a five star hotel at plot Nos. 4/1 and 4/2, Mauja Araji Line, mohalla Slkraul, near Varuna Bridge, Varanasi, submitted a plan for sanction to the Varanasi development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") constituted under the provisions of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the act" ). The proposed five star hotel building is to have seven floors besides basement. The plan was sanctioned by the Authority on 9. 8. 1995 and an outside limit of three years was provided to complete the construction work, meaning thereby the life of the sanctioned plan was to expire on august 8, 1998. In view of various difficulties, the constructions as per the sanctioned plan, could not be completed within the time-frame. The petitioners applied on 4. 8. 1998 for extension of time by two years to complete the construction of building. The basement, ground floor and the first floor portion of the hotel building had been constructed. There were certain sharp unauthorised deviations and in view of voluntary compounding scheme, the constructions which were not in conformity with the sanctioned plan were compounded after the petitioners had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,94,908 on 19. 2. 2000. In this manner, the offending constructions on the basement, ground floor and the first floor came to be regularised. The petitioners continued the construction of the second and third floor of the building to which the Authority took an exception and served the petitioners with a notice under Sections 27 and 28 of the Act and called upon them to explain under what authority further constructions are being made as the life span of the original plan had already expired on 8. 8. 1998. 8. 1998. The petitioners submitted an explanation that the repeat floors are being constructed strictly in accordance with the original sanctioned plan. The Authority passed orders for stopping further construction work. On May 29, 2000, the vice-Chairman of the Authority directed that the building under construction be sealed in view of provisions of Section 28a (4) of the Act so that the petitioners are prevented from carrying on further construction work on the spot, which according to Authority was an illegal activity, as the original sanctioned map has run out its life. With the police help, the site of the disputed construction was sealed. On the representation of the petitioners, the Commissioner of the division who also happened to be the ex officio Chairman of the Authority passed an order that the premises be unsealed and no interference be caused in the on-going work. Ultimately this order was recalled by the Commissioner of the Division when full facts, it appears, were brought to his notice by the Authority. The application of the petitioners dated 4. 8. 1998 for extension of time was rejected by the Authority on 13. 6. 2000. ( 2 ) THE petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division, who by the impugned order dated July 3. 2000 remanded the case to the Vice-Chairman of the Authority for taking decision afresh in the matter. The direction issued by the Commissioner/ appellate authority, translated into English runs as follows : "7. In the conspectus of the above analysis, the matter is remanded to the Vice-Chairman, varanasi Development Authority with the direction that in case the appellant (petitioner) submits an application for renewal or revalidation of the originally sanctioned plan as per rules, then it shall be disposed of according to law by a speaking order within a week. The seal put on the site of the disputed construction be opened subject to the condition that if the appellant commences further construction work in that event the site shall be sealed again. Accordingly, Appeal No. 177 of 2000 and Appeal/representation No. 171 of 2000 are disposed of. . . . . . " Pursuant to the above order of the appellate authority/commissioner of the Division, the petitioners have submitted a fresh plan on 6. 7. 2000. The Authority raised certain objections/queries on 12. 7. Accordingly, Appeal No. 177 of 2000 and Appeal/representation No. 171 of 2000 are disposed of. . . . . . " Pursuant to the above order of the appellate authority/commissioner of the Division, the petitioners have submitted a fresh plan on 6. 7. 2000. The Authority raised certain objections/queries on 12. 7. 2000 (Annexure-13 to the petition) and sought the clarification from the petitioners, who have submitted their reply, a copy of which is Annexure-14 to the petition. The site of construction still continues to be sealed as the Authority has filed a review application before the appellate authority with regard to the direction of unsealing the same. ( 3 ) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 3. 7. 2000 passed by the appellate authority in Appeal No. 177 of 2000, a copy of which is Annexure-10 to the petition as well as the order dated 29. 5. 2000, annexure-7 to the petition, passed by the Vice-Chairman of the Authority-respondent No. 4 for sealing the site of the construction under Section 28a (4) of the Act and the order dated 12. 7. 2000, Annexure-13 to the petition, whereby a number of queries/objections have been raised on the fresh plan submitted by the petitioner. It is prayed that the aforesaid orders be quashed and the respondents be prohibited from interfering, in any manner whatsoever, in the ongoing construction of the hotel building over plot Nos. 4/1 and 4/2, Mauja Araji Line, Mohalla sikraul, near Varuna Bridge, Varanasi. It is further prayed that the respondents be commanded to open the seal put on the existing constructions at the site aforesaid. ( 4 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. ( 5 ) HEARD Sri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Authority as well as learned standing counsel. ( 4 ) COUNTER and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged. ( 5 ) HEARD Sri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Authority as well as learned standing counsel. ( 6 ) SRI Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent-Authority pointed out and took a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that since the matter in respect of construction on the site in question is under consideration of the Honble supreme Court in S. L. P. No. 9961-9963 of 2000 and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo with regard to the disputed construction, the petitioners cannot be permitted to undertake the work of construction and, therefore, the various reliefs claimed by the petitioners in the present petition cannot be granted. Sri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners maintained that the matter which is pending before the Honble Supreme Court has nothing to do with the disputed constructions as the special leave petition has been preferred by the respondent-Authority against the order dated 23. 5. 2000 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29087 of 1998, filed by Durgesh Shanker Mathur and others and the orders dated 17. 5. 2000 and 23. 5. 2000 passed in Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 42216 of 2000 arising out of the said miscellaneous writ petition. In order to resolve this controversy and for the sake of clarity, it is necessary to reproduce the contents of paragraphs 3 and 35 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-Authority. These paragraphs read as follows : "3. That in reply to contents of paragraph No. 1 of the writ petition, it is stated that though this is the first writ petition with regard to the property subject-matter of the present writ petition, however. It is stated that the property in question has already been made subject to the contempt application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India being Contempt Application No. 42216 of 2000 arising out of Writ Petition No. 20987 of 1998. It is further stated that the subject-matter of the present writ petition is the property being No. 4/1 and 4/2 Mauja Arazi line. It is further stated that the subject-matter of the present writ petition is the property being No. 4/1 and 4/2 Mauja Arazi line. Ward Sikraul, near Varuna Bridge, Varanasi and to show that the said very property was the subject-matter of the Contempt Application No. 42216 of 2000, copy of the judgment dated 17. 5. 2000 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-1 to this counter-affidavit. Thus, it is stated that since the property which is in question has already been subject-matter in earlier case arising out of Writ Petition No. 20987 of 1998, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. " "35. That contents of paragraph 38 of the writ petition are denied. It is denied that there is any illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the answering -respondent. It is further stated that since the petitioners have already raised a dispute with regard to construction over site No. 4/1 and 4/2 mauja Araji Line, near Varuna Bridge. Ward Sikraul, Varanasi, in Contempt Petition No. 42216 of 2000 under Article 215 of the Constitution of India arising out of Writ Petition No. 20987 of 1998 as is clear from the order dated 17. 5. 2000, copy of which has already been filed as annexure-CA-1 to this counter-affidavit. It is further stated that subsequently the Writ Petition No. 20987 of 1998 was allowed finally vide judgment dated 23. 5. 2000. It is further submitted that against the order passed in the writ petition as well as in the contempt petition, the answering respondents have filed S. L. P. before the Honble Supreme Court being S. L. P. Nos. 9961-9963 of 2000, whereby the Honble Supreme court has been pleased to stay the orders passed by this Honble Court. Copy of the judgment passed in S. L. P. Is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-9 to this counter-affidavit. It is further submitted that after the judgment/orders passed by this Honble Court, wherein the petitioner has already raised dispute with regard to the property situated over site Nos. 4/1 and 4/2 Mauja Araji Line, near Varuna Bridge, Ward Sikraul, Varanasi, which is the subject-matter of the present writ petition. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition, however, till the order passed by this Honble Court is in operation, the present writ petition deserves no consideration. 4/1 and 4/2 Mauja Araji Line, near Varuna Bridge, Ward Sikraul, Varanasi, which is the subject-matter of the present writ petition. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition, however, till the order passed by this Honble Court is in operation, the present writ petition deserves no consideration. It is further stated that in the writ petition subsequently on 14. 7. 2000 the petitioner has again moved an application with regard to on-going construction over site No. 4/1 and 4/2 Mauja Araji line, Ward Sikraul, near Varuna Bridge, Varanasi, which is the subject-matter of the present writ petition and to prove the same copy of the said contempt application (except annexures) is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-CA-10 to this counter-affidavit. It is further stated that since the matter is pending with the Honble Supreme Court as such the present writ petition requires no consideration and liable to be dismissed. " In Annexure-CA-10 to the counter-affidavit, which is a copy of the application moved in contempt Application No. 42216 of 2000 under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, reference of the site on which the disputed constructions are going on has been made in paragraphs 7, 8. 9 and 10. The various orders with regard to the disputed site. i. e. , plot Nos. 4/1 and 4/2, Mauja Araji Line. Mohalla Sikraul, near Varuna Bridge. Varanasi, which have been challenged in the present petition have been specifically referred to in the said application and the conduct of the Vice-Chairman Sri V. S. Bhullar has been criticised. A specific prayer (iii) has been made in the contempt application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, which runs as follows :" (iii) To issue a direction that the conduct of Shri Jagat Raj Tripathi, Joint Secretary, Varanasi development Authority be investigated in so far as it relates to the on going construction at site nos. 4/1 and 4/2 Mauja Araji Line, near Varuna Bridge. Varanasi, as per the sanctioned map, wherein he is not permitting the construction to proceed in spite of sanctioned map being there, only on account of the fact that requisite amount of money demanded by him is not being paid to him. " An interim order issuing notice was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on the said contempt application on 18. 5. 2000 followed by a final order dated 23. 5. " An interim order issuing notice was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on the said contempt application on 18. 5. 2000 followed by a final order dated 23. 5. 2000 in the contempt petition as well as in Writ Petition No. 20987 of 1998. Both the orders passed on the contempt petition as well as on writ petition have been challenged before the Apex Court by filing Special leave to Appeal Nos. 9961-9963 of 2000 on which the Honble Supreme Court has passed an order on 20. 7. 2000, the relevant portion of which is extracted below :". . . . . till further orders, operation of the impugned orders passed by the High Court are stayed. Mr. Mishra, the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 states that original sanctioned plan would be produced by the respondent No. 1 on the next date of hearing. Parties are directed to maintain status quo as of today with regard to the disputed construction. Contempt proceeding against the petitioner shall also remain stayed. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 prays for and is granted two weeks time for filing counter-affidavit. Rejoinder- affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. " ( 7 ) IN view of the above facts, now the preliminary question for determination is whether the order passed by the Apex Court on 20. 7. 2000 directing the parties to maintain the status quo (as on the date of the order) with regard to the disputed construction would apply to the constructions which are the subject-matter of the present writ petition. For the reasons which are to follow, I would hasten to conclude that the aforesaid order of the Apex Court dated 20. 7. 2000 passed in Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 9961-9963 of 2000 does not debar the present petitioners to maintain the petition. The earlier Writ Petition No. 20987 of 1998 was filed by one Durgesh shankara Mathur with regard to the constructions made over Araji No. 313 Mauja Cantt. , Sikraul district Varanasi, as per approved plan dated 16. 5. 1998 by the Authority. The following reliefs were specifically claimed in the aforesaid writ petition : " (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and restraining the respondent Nos. , Sikraul district Varanasi, as per approved plan dated 16. 5. 1998 by the Authority. The following reliefs were specifically claimed in the aforesaid writ petition : " (i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and restraining the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and its agents and servants from demolishing any construction raised over Araji No. 313. Mauza Cantt. Sikraul, district Varanasi, as per the approved plan dated 16. 5. 1998 by the Vice-Chairman of Varanasi Development Authority, Varanasi; (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to restore status quo ante as it existed in the afternoon of 26. 6. 1978 in regard to the property No. 313, Mauza Cantt. Sikraul, Varanasi by raising the boundary wall, as it existed at the said point of time ; (iii ). . . . . . (iv ). . . . . The property which was involved in the earlier writ petition, filed by Durgesh Shankar Mathur is distinct, separate and away from the site which comprises of Arazi Nos. 4/1 and 4/2, Muza arazi Civil Lines, Sikraul, near Varuna Bridge, Varanasi. The owners of the two buildings are different and they have nothing in common with them. In the earlier writ petition, the constructions had already been completed and there was a threat for their demolition and as a matter of fact, a portion of the boundary wall was demolished. It was in these circumstances, that the reliefs, as extracted above, came to be claimed and were ultimately granted by this Court. In the present case, the constructions were commenced pursuant to the plan which was originally sanctioned on 8. 8. 1995. Since the constructions could not be completed within the period specified, further extension of time was sought and the dispute is with regard to the raising of the further constructions in pursuance of the original plan, life of which has expired. The present petitioners could not be and were not party to the earlier Writ Petition No. 20987 of 1998, and there was not even a whisper in the averments made in the earlier writ petition about plot Nos. 4/1 and 4/2, Mauza Arazi Civil Lines, Sikraul, district Varanasi. One cannot escape from the conclusion that whatever has been stated, considered and determined in the earlier Writ Petition no. 4/1 and 4/2, Mauza Arazi Civil Lines, Sikraul, district Varanasi. One cannot escape from the conclusion that whatever has been stated, considered and determined in the earlier Writ Petition no. 20987 of 1998 has nothing to do with the property, which is the subject-matter of the instant writ petition and the persons who are the petitioners. " ( 8 ) THE whole confusion appears to have arisen on account of the fact in the application under article 215 of the Constitution of India, for initiating action against the officials/officers of the respondent-Authority for the alleged flagrant violation of the order of this Court, a reference was made in an incidental manner with regard to the property, which is involved in the present writ petition, to lend strength to the assertion that the officials/officers of the Authority were out to harass the builders for extraneous considerations and since the same officers were involved in harassing the present petitioners for ulterior and extraneous purposes, it was prayed that the conduct of those officers, particularly, that of Sri Jagat Raj Tripathi, Joint Secretary, Varanasi development Authority be investigated. This Court finally decided the Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 20987 of 1998 on 23. 5. 2000 granting the requisite reliefs. On the application for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, an order has been passed by the same Division bench on 23. 5. 2000 (in Criminal Contempt Application No. 42216 of 2000/criminal Contempt petition No. 35 of 2000 ). Against the orders passed in writ petition as well as the contempt petition on 23. 5. 2000, the Varanasi Development Authority as well as the alleged contemnors have filed Special Leave to Appeal on which the order dated 20. 7. 2000, as quoted above, was passed by the Apex Court. The order that the parties shall maintain status quo as on the date of the order-with regard to the disputed construction has no bearing on relation to, or nexus with site Nos. 4/1 and 4/2, which are the properties in dispute in the petition, in hand. The order of the apex Court, of necessity, has to be confined with regard to the property No. 313 Mauza Cantt. Sikraul district Varanasi which was disputed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20987 of 1998. 4/1 and 4/2, which are the properties in dispute in the petition, in hand. The order of the apex Court, of necessity, has to be confined with regard to the property No. 313 Mauza Cantt. Sikraul district Varanasi which was disputed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20987 of 1998. The submission of the learned counsel for the Varanasi Development Authority that on account of the order of the Apex Court dated 20. 7. 2000 passed in Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 9961-9963 of 2000, the present writ petition is not maintainable, is wide off the mark as there is nothing in common between the two writ petitions in the conspectus of the facts stated above. ( 9 ) HAVING cleared the decks from the cobwebs spun by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents about the maintainability of the present writ petition, now it is the time to consider the merits of the present writ petition. It is an indubitable fact that a plan to construct a five-star hotel building with seven floors besides the basement was sanctioned by the Authority on 9. 8. 1995. The entire building was to be completed within a period of three years, meaning thereby the sanction was to enure up to 8. 8. 1998, which was the deadline. The petitioners did commence the work of construction but could reach only up to the level of the basement, ground floor and first floor and consequently before the approach of the deadline, they applied on 4. 8. 1998 for extension of time by two years to complete the project. The various deviations which came to be made by the petitioners in the construction of the basement, ground floor and first floor portions were compounded and regularised by the respondent-Authority on deposit of rs. 3,94,908. The bogey of the unauthorised constructions or deviations cannot now be raised by the respondent-Authority as it has itself condoned the deviations after accepting a substantial amount as per rules. The whole trouble started when the petitioners were prevented from raising the repeat floors on and above the first floor. 3,94,908. The bogey of the unauthorised constructions or deviations cannot now be raised by the respondent-Authority as it has itself condoned the deviations after accepting a substantial amount as per rules. The whole trouble started when the petitioners were prevented from raising the repeat floors on and above the first floor. The respondent- Authority, it appears, laboured under the impression that since the original period of three years has expired the sanctioned plan has lapsed and, therefore, any further building activity would be in teeth of the provisions of section 27 of the Act liable to be stopped and since the petitioners continued to raise their constructions, the drastic provisions of Section 28a (4) of the Act were invoked. The petitioners, on the other hand, were swayed away by the idea that since their unauthorised constructions have been compounded, they are entitled to continue with the building activity of the repeat floors. They, therefore, approached the Commissioner of the division/chairman of the Authority to intervene in the matter. The stand taken by the petitioners found favour with the Chairman and he issued instructions to the Vice Chairman of the Authority to unseal the site so that the on-going building activity may not come to a halt. There was apparent resistance on the part of the officers of the Authority who, to some extent went out of the way to flout the orders of their chairman. When the orders passed by the Chairman on the administrative side failed to evoke favourable response, the petitioners had to take the recourse to the judicial proceeding by filing a formal appeal under the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 27 of the Act. The appeal was decided by the Chairman on 3. 7. 2000 and the matter was remanded to the Vice Chairman to dispose of the application for renewal or revalidation of the original sanctioned plan as per rules within a week. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted a fresh plan on 6. 7. 2000. Instead of revalidating or renewing the original plan, the officers of the Authority, incensed as they were, had chosen to raise certain frivolous objections. They did not pass orders for renewal or revalidation of the original sanctioned plan. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted a fresh plan on 6. 7. 2000. Instead of revalidating or renewing the original plan, the officers of the Authority, incensed as they were, had chosen to raise certain frivolous objections. They did not pass orders for renewal or revalidation of the original sanctioned plan. ( 10 ) I have given thoughtful consideration to the matter with reference to the rival contentions of the parties and the material brought on the record and find that the various contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are not unfounded. With a view to regulate the building activity in a developmental area, it is necessary to sanction the building plans. Sanction of plans has an element of public purpose. The time-limit within which the work of construction is to be completed is fixed in order to encourage the building activity and to develop the area within the specified period. However, the deadline by which the constructions are required to be completed can never be sacrosanct and in view of the various difficulties, imponderables and the exigencies, which may not be foreseen, the life of the plan may be extended by passing an order which in the common parlance is termed as revalidation or renewal of the plan originally sanctioned. One cannot lose sight of the fact that seven storeyed (besides the basement) hotel building is a gigantic venture fraught with certain difficulties which cannot be easily visualised. The request of the petitioners for extension of two years time to complete the project in the circumstances appeared to be quite genuine and reasonable. After the offending constructions had been compounded, prayer for extension of time should have been, in the normal course, allowed by the Authority. The request of the petitioners for extension of two years time to complete the project in the circumstances appeared to be quite genuine and reasonable. After the offending constructions had been compounded, prayer for extension of time should have been, in the normal course, allowed by the Authority. ( 11 ) SRI V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that in spite of the orders passed by the Chairman in appeal, the officers of the respondent-Authority are not prepared to see to reason and have adopted an attitude of hostility against the petitioners and the matter has been allowed to pend unnecessarily to the serious detriment of the petitioners, who are in a quandary after having invested a huge money in making part of the constructions which they are not able to complete on account of the arbitrary, uncalled for, reckless and callous attitude of the officers of the respondent-Authority as somehow they have entertained a feeling that the adverse orders in the earlier writ and contempt petitions came into being at the behest of the present petitioners. It was also urged that the application dated 4. 8. 1998 moved by the petitioners for extension of time was rejected by the Authority on 13. 6. 2000, i. e. , after about 22 months of its filing on totally insufficient, untenable and tenuous grounds with a view to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioners to complete the project. ( 12 ) THE Vice Chairman of the Authority and other officers subordinate to him have acted in cohesion against the interest of the petitioners and were out to deliberately cause loss to them. The entire exercise was directed in a manner so as to defeat the legitimate rights of the petitioners who were at all stages prepared to obey orders and directions of the Authority. This is obvious from the fact that after the submission of the plans by the petitioners on 6. 7. 2000 pursuant to the orders of the appellate authority, an attitude of pinpricking and hairsplitting was adopted by raising frivolous objections. The frivolity of the objections raised on behalf of the authority may be exemplified in order to demonstrate the unfairness on the part of the officers and employees of the respondent-Authority. In the letter dated 12. 7. 7. 2000 pursuant to the orders of the appellate authority, an attitude of pinpricking and hairsplitting was adopted by raising frivolous objections. The frivolity of the objections raised on behalf of the authority may be exemplified in order to demonstrate the unfairness on the part of the officers and employees of the respondent-Authority. In the letter dated 12. 7. 2000, addressed by the respondent-Authority to the petitioners, a copy of which is Annexure-13 to the writ petition, the first objection raised is that the petitioners have diminished and consumed the parking space in the basement by raising partition walls which act is objectionable both from technical and planning point of view. The petitioners in their reply, a copy of which is Annexure-14 to the writ petition, have clarified that the partition walls, which are purely of temporary nature have been put up with a view to accommodate and provide space for housing the masons and labourers who are engaged in the construction of huge project and after the building work is complete and the workers are relieved of their Job, the temporary partition walls are liable to be removed and eventually the entire area shall be made available for parking purposes. It is common knowledge that temporary structures are put up for accommodating the labourers at the site itself and after the completion of the building, labourers quit the place and move out. The Authority has raised the objection just for the sake of objection so that the renewal or validation of the plan submitted by the petitioners in view of the direction of the appellate court may continue to remain pending. This attitude of the respondent-Authority is reprehensible and cannot but be condemned. Now when the petitioners have to make the constructions of repeat floors, there hardly appears to be scope for any valid and tangible objection. ( 13 ) THERE is yet another aspect of the matter. With a view to relieve the public of the harassment occasioned in getting the building plans sanctioned, the State Government has simplified the procedure by taking a policy decision. The original period of validity of three years of a building plan for a commercial or a group housing scheme has been extended to five years. With a view to relieve the public of the harassment occasioned in getting the building plans sanctioned, the State Government has simplified the procedure by taking a policy decision. The original period of validity of three years of a building plan for a commercial or a group housing scheme has been extended to five years. This policy decision of the State Government is contained in Avas Need Karya Pariyojna circulated by housing Department of State of U. P. , Lucknow in March 1999, a copy of which is Annexure-11 to the writ petition. Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent-Authority appears to be of the view that no Government order has been issued pursuant to the policy decision and, therefore, reference to the aforesaid Avas Neett Karya Pariyojna is otiose. This submission is clearly in opposition to the provisions of Section 41 of the Act. It contemplates control by the state Government over the Development Authority, its Chairman or the Vice Chairman. Subsection (1) of Section 41 lays down that the Authority, the Chairman or the Vice Chairman shall carry out such directions as may be Issued to it from time to time by the State Government for the efficient administration of the Development Authority. It is not disputed that Avas Neeti karya Pariyojna, Annexure-11 has been issued by the State Government. Not only this, alive to the situation, the State Government has also capped the policy decision by issuing Government order No. M/182and9andvk-and3@97andfofo/kand97 dated September 30, 2000 and the validity period of the plan sanctioned for a commercial building stands extended to five years. Even after the expiry of the period of five years life of the plan may be extended thrice on year to year basis. The policy decision that the life of the plan sanctioned for commercial buildings or group housing shall be five years with further extensions on year to year basis has to be implemented by every Development Authority constituted under the Act. These directions of the government cannot be ignored or, in any manner frustrated. The attitude of the respondent-Authority in pestering and harassing the petitioners, in the instant case, cannot but be condemned. ( 14 ) FROM the material brought on record, one can easily infer that the respondent-Authority has not been fair in dealing with the petitioners. These directions of the government cannot be ignored or, in any manner frustrated. The attitude of the respondent-Authority in pestering and harassing the petitioners, in the instant case, cannot but be condemned. ( 14 ) FROM the material brought on record, one can easily infer that the respondent-Authority has not been fair in dealing with the petitioners. The variety of reasons, which impelled the authority to adopt hostile attitude, are not too far to seek. Sri V. K. Shukla learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the action of the respondent-Authority and its officers has not only been arbitrary or capricious but certainly discriminatory. He pointed out that in the case of another hotel building known as M. M. Continental Hotel, the respondent-Authority has adopted a partisan attitude, inasmuch as, in spite of the fact that the entire building has been constructed against the provisions of the plan, it has been allowed to be continued and some orders for compounding of the offending constructions appear to have been passed surreptitiously. To fortify his contention, the record of the M. M. Continental Hotel was required to be summoned. On the application of the petitioners. Sri V. B. Singh, who was earlier counsel for the respondent-Authority undertook to produce the record of the said establishment on the next date, but for the reasons best known to the Authority, the record was not produced and it was deliberately withheld obviously with oblique motive. The Court has been deprived of the opportunity of wading through the record of M. M. Continental Hotel. A legitimate adverse inference may, therefore, be drawn against the respondent-Authority that it has applied different yardsticks in the matter of construction of hotel buildings in the developmental area of Varanasi. The respondent No. 3 is a public authority and there are plethora of decisions of Honble the supreme Court as well as this Court that a public body should not have unfettered discretion in dealing with the citizens. In this connection, I am reminded of the observations made by Prof. Wade in his book administrative Law. He said : "the powers of public authorities are, therefore, essentially different from those of private persons. A man making his will may, subject to any rights of his dependants, dispose of his property just as he may wish. In this connection, I am reminded of the observations made by Prof. Wade in his book administrative Law. He said : "the powers of public authorities are, therefore, essentially different from those of private persons. A man making his will may, subject to any rights of his dependants, dispose of his property just as he may wish. He may act out of malice or a spirit of revenge, but in law this does not affect his exercise of his power. In the same way a private person has an absolute power to allow whom he likes to use his land, to release a debtor, or, where the law permits, to evict a tenant, regardless of his motives. This is unfettered discretion. But a public authority may do none of these things unless it acts reasonably and in good faith and upon lawful and relevant grounds of public interest. There are many cases in which a public authority has been held to have acted from improper motives or upon irrelevant considerations, or to have failed to take account of relevant considerations, so that its action is ultra vires and void. " The action of the public authority, therefore, must be based on some rational and relevant purpose. It must not be guided by irrational or irrelevant considerations. It is expected that a statutory public authority must exercise its powers in public interest and for public good. Misuse of power implies doing of something improper. The essence of Impropriety is replacement of public motive for a private one. Certainly the decisions which are capricious cannot be legitimate. ( 15 ) WITHOUT dilating over the matter any further, suffice it to say that the respondent-Authority is duty bound to pass appropriate orders for validating/renewal of the plan submitted by the petitioners in the light of the directions made by the appellate court as well as the observations made above. Already there has been a considerable delay in completing the work of construction. If the Authority had extended time in view of the policy decision taken by the State government for extension of the validity period of the plans and had not sealed the site, hotel building by now would have reached an advanced stage. The petitioners should not be permitted to suffer any further due to the arbitrary, unjustified and callous attitude of the officers of the authority. The petitioners should not be permitted to suffer any further due to the arbitrary, unjustified and callous attitude of the officers of the authority. ( 16 ) THIS writ petition is finally decided with the direction that the respondent No. 3-Authority shall immediately pass orders (not later than 15 days from the date a copy of this judgment is produced before it) for the revalidation/renewal of the plan filed by the petitioners and release the same pursuant to the order dated 3. 7. 2000 of the appellate authority as well as the State government dated 30. 9. 2000 and after removing the seal from the site, it shall make it available for further constructions according to the original sanctioned plan, without any let or hindrances.