JUDGMENT B. Sudershan Reddy, C.J. 1. The writ petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company engaged in the real estate business of which the 2nd petitioner is the Managing Director. 2. The present writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in the matter of grant of No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner-company for building permission as sought by the petitioners. 3. Shorn of all the details the petitioners have applied for building permission for construction of multi-storied building over a plot of land admeasuring 3 Bigha, 3 Katha, 3 Lechas situated at 11 bye-lane, Rajgarh Road, Guwahati through a proper application dated 16.9.2003 addressed to the Guwahati Municipal Corporation. The Corporation vide its letter dated 5.2.2004 rejected the application of the petitioners on the ground that the proposals submitted by the petitioners cannot be considered as "the approach road width does not permit the apartment building. Plot abutting two roads which are less than 6.60m proposed a passage of 7.50m width connecting two bye-lanes". (Sic) 4. The petitioners thereafter preferred appeal before the Standing Appeal Committee on 22.3.2004 against the order of rejection and the Standing Appeal Committee vide its order dated 7.12.2004 disposed of the appeal in the following manner: SAC visited the site and found that the plot in question is the 3rd plot on approach road from the main road. The main road is about 50 feet wide. The approach road from the main road is about 15 feet to 17 feet, but the applicant has submitted on an affidavit to the effect that they will leave sufficient area in front for widening the approach road to 22 feet. As the total length of the plot along the approach road covers the 50% of the total length of the approach road. Hence the proposed widening in front of the plot in question may be considered as the actual width of the road. In view of the above fact the appeal is considered. 5. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that in spite of the directions issued by the Standing Appeal Committee, which has attained its finality, the Corporation did not issue 'No Objection Certificate' in terms of the appellate order. 6. In view of the above fact the appeal is considered. 5. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that in spite of the directions issued by the Standing Appeal Committee, which has attained its finality, the Corporation did not issue 'No Objection Certificate' in terms of the appellate order. 6. It is under those circumstances the petitioners filed this writ petition with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order or direction declaring the non-issuance of the No Objection Certificate' by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioners in terms of the order dated 7.12.2004 passed by the Standing Appeal Committee as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of consequential directions directing the respondents more particularly the 2nd respondent to issue No Objection Certificate as prayed for by the petitioners. 7. It is true, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the order passed by the Standing Appeal Committee dated 7.12.2004 has attained its finality since it remained unquestioned. In the normal course the Corporation is bound to implement the directions of the Standing Appeal Committee as it is an appellate authority entrusted with the appellate powers to reverse and substantially modify any action taken or proposed to be taken by the Commissioner or the Corporation. The Commissioner, however, is entitled to refer the matter to the Corporation and pending the decision of the Corporation on such reference the Commissioner is not bound to give effect to the decision of the Standing Appeal Committee. The Corporation is entitled to take an appropriate decision on such reference. But in the instant case record does not suggest that any such reference has been made by the Commissioner to the Corporation for its decision. It is for that reason the learned Counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that the order dated 7.12.2004 of the Standing Appeal Committee has attained its finality. 8. The short question that falls for our consideration is - Whether a writ of mandamus as prayed for lies on the facts and in the circumstances of this case ? It is for that reason the learned Counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that the order dated 7.12.2004 of the Standing Appeal Committee has attained its finality. 8. The short question that falls for our consideration is - Whether a writ of mandamus as prayed for lies on the facts and in the circumstances of this case ? It is settled law and needs no restatement at our hands that this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not issue any writ, order or direction in case the order or direction results in resurrection or resuscitation of an otherwise illegal order passed by the authority. This court's equitable jurisdiction cannot be permitted to be invoked to give effect to an order passed by an authority which itself is not in conformity with law. A wrong decision by an authority does not give right to enforce that wrong order. That, a wrong order cannot form the basis or foundation for claiming equality for enforcement of the same order. 9. In such view of the matter it is inevitable to consider - Whether the order dated 7.12.2004 passed by the Standing Appeal Committee is valid in law ? Bye-law No. 37 of the GMC Building Bye-laws prescribes the maximum height of the building and additional requirement which reads as under: 37. Maximum height of the building and additional requirement. - Building shall not exceed 3 stores or a height of 11.5m without following the additional provisions for open space all around the building except in cases where otherwise specified - (i) the side and rear set backs shall be increased by 0.3m for every 1.5m additional height of the building in addition to the set backs already prescribed in this rule subject to a maximum of 4.5 m side set back and 6m rear set back. (ii) building shall not exceed 1.5 times the width of the road plus front open space subject to a maximum of 2 times the road width ; (iii) residential building should not be cut by 45 degree angle line drawn from the opposite edge of road. However, buildings up to two storey is exempted of it. (a) For the purpose of building height calculation, width of the road shall be taken as existing road width. However, buildings up to two storey is exempted of it. (a) For the purpose of building height calculation, width of the road shall be taken as existing road width. (b) Lift machine room, stair case, parapet height shall not be included in the height of the building. (c) For a building constructed on stilt with provisions of ground love/parking floor or semi-basement parking floor, the height of the building will be calculated by omitting the height of the parking floor up to a maximum of 2.4m for the purpose of building height subject to provision of exclusive parking in the ground floor. (d) Building above the height of 15.82m shall require necessary clearance from State Fire Service. (e) For a building with a height above 12 mtrs. or above 4 floors including the ground floor, at least one lift shall be made available. (f) For building in the vicinity of the aerodromes, the maximum height of such buildings shall be subject to conformity with the height limitations prescribed by the Civil Aviation Authorities from time to time and to this effect a No Objection Certificate issued by that authority shall be submitted by the applicant along with plans to the sanctioning authority. (g) Height exceptions. The following apartment structures shall not be included in the height of building: (i) roof tanks and their supports not exceeding 1.5m in height; (ii) ventilationing, air conditioning and lift rooms and similar service equipments, start-covered with roof up to 3m in height, chimney and parapet wall and architectural features not exceeding 1.5m in height. 10. That, a plain reading of the Bye-laws more particularly Bye-law No. 37(a) suggests that for the purpose of building height calculation, width of the road shall be taken as existing road width. The expression "road" employed in Building Bye-law No. 37(a) is required to be understood as whole of the road and not a portion or part thereof. Admittedly in the instant case, as is evident from the order passed by the Standing Appeal Committee, the width of the main road is about 50 feet and the approach road from the main road is about 15 feet to 17 feet and accordingly no permission could have been granted for construction of a multistoreyed apartment building. The Standing. Admittedly in the instant case, as is evident from the order passed by the Standing Appeal Committee, the width of the main road is about 50 feet and the approach road from the main road is about 15 feet to 17 feet and accordingly no permission could have been granted for construction of a multistoreyed apartment building. The Standing. Appeal Committee has rested its decision on an affidavit purported to have been filed by the writ petitioners to the effect that they will leave sufficient area "in front for widening the approach road to 22 feet" Admittedly the writ petitioners have not undertaken to, widen the whole of the existing road but only a small portion thereof. An ingenious device to overcome the requirement of law. The Standing Appeal Committee itself has taken note of the fact that the total length of the plot along the approach road covers only 50% of the total length of the approach road. We find it difficult to discern as to how the Standing Appeal Committee could have allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners in the light of its own findings and issued directions to the effect the proposed widening in front of the plot in question would be considered as the actual width of the road. The order passed by the Standing Appeal Committee runs counter and contrary to the Bye-law No. 37(a) of the GMC Building Bye-laws. It is also contrary to the Bye-law No. 38 which says that if a building is situated on two or more streets of different widths, the building shall be deemed for the purpose of those bye-laws to face the streets which has the greater width and the height will be as per Bye-law. 11. For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the order passed by the Standing Appeal Committee is unenforceable being contrary to the law and this court cannot issue any writ, direction or order compelling the respondents to give effect to an order which itself is an illegal one. 12. We find no merit in this writ petition and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed but without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.