JUDGMENT 1. THE Judgment of the Court was as follows: In this writ application, the petitioners have sought inter alia a writ of mandamus commanding the Kolkata Municipal Corporation authorities to revoke the sanction of a building plan for construction of a building at 19, Deshapriya Park Road, Kolkata-700 026, hereinafter referred to as the school premises, where a missionary school, Carmel Primary School is run. 2. THE petitioners claim to be the owners and/or occupants of Premises Nos. 21A, 21B, 21C, 21D, 21E, 21F and 21G, Deshapriya Park Road, Kolkata, adjacent to and/or near the school premises. THE school premises earlier comprised a school building in front and vacant land at the back, which was used as a play ground. A building plan has been sanctioned for construction of a building on the vacant land at the back of the school premises and construction is in progress. The writ application has been moved on the allegation that sanction of building plan has been obtained by fraudulently misrepresenting a private passage leading to Premises Nos. 21A, 21B, 21C, 21D, 21E, 21F and 21G, Deshapriya Park Road, Kolkata-700026 owned and/or occupied by the petitioners, to be a public street. 3. THE petitioners have alleged that the respondent No.9 had submitted a building plan for sanction by fraudulently showing access to the proposed building through the aforesaid private passage and through a part of Premises No.21 A, Deshapriya Park Road, Kolkata, where there is a generator room. 4. ACCORDING to the petitioners, the building plan submitted by the respondent No.9 would not have been sanctioned, if the respondent No.9 had not fraudulently shown access to the proposed building through the private passage and the part of the premises of the petitioner No. 1 on which there is a generator room. The petitioners contend that the respondent No. 1 has no right to the use of the private passage or any part of the land of the petitioner No.1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that this Court should direct the authorities of Kolkata Municipal Corporation to consider the objection of the petitioners to sanction of the building plan and to take appropriate steps for revocation of the building plan, in the event the allegations made by the petitioners are found to be correct. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that this Court should direct the authorities of Kolkata Municipal Corporation to consider the objection of the petitioners to sanction of the building plan and to take appropriate steps for revocation of the building plan, in the event the allegations made by the petitioners are found to be correct. 5. THERE is no other provision in the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 for revocation of a building plan that has once been sanctioned, except for section 397, which is set out hereinbelow for convenience: "397. Sanction or provisional sanction accorded under misrepresentation. - If, at any time after the communication of sanction or provisional sanction to the erection of any building or the execution of any work, the Municipal Commissioner is satisfied that such sanction or provisional sanction was accorded in consequence of any material misrepresentation or any fraudulent statement in the notice given or information furnished under section 393 or section 394 or section 395, he may, by order in writing, cancel, for reasons to be recorded, such sanction or provisional sanction, and any building or any work commenced, erected or executed shall be deemed to have been commenced, erected or executed without such sanction and shall be dealt with under the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that before making any such order, the Municipal Commissioner shall give a reasonable opportunity to the person affected as to why such order should not be made." 6. THE power to revoke sanction or provisional sanction to the erection of any building can only be exercised, if the Municipal Commissioner is satisfied that the sanction or provisional sanction, as the case may be, had been accorded in consequence of any material misrepresentation or any fraudulent statement.' Unless there is a finding of material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement, as a consequence of which sanction has been granted, there can be no question of exercise of power under section 397 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act. 7. PURSUANT to the orders of this Court, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation produced the entire records pertaining to the sanction of the building plan in question. This Court carefully scrutinized the records. There is nothing in the records to show that there had been any misrepresentation, far less any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement. 7. PURSUANT to the orders of this Court, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation produced the entire records pertaining to the sanction of the building plan in question. This Court carefully scrutinized the records. There is nothing in the records to show that there had been any misrepresentation, far less any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement. There is no assertion anywhere that the road to the left of the school premises leading to Premises No.21 A to 21G, Deshapriya Park Road is a public street. Nor has the school claimed access through the said road. 8. COUNSEL appearing on behalf of the petitioners has referred to Rule 9 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (Building) Rules, 2009 which specifies the colouring notation for building plans. As per Rule 9 an existing street is to be indicated in green wash. Referring to the said Rule, COUNSEL submitted that the private passage leading to Premises Nos. 21A to 21G had deliberately been delineated in green wash in the building plan that was submitted for sanction, to create the impression that it was a public street. This Court also perused the building plan that was submitted by the respondent No.9 to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The road to the left of the school premises which leads to Premises Nos. 21A to 21G, Deshapriya Park Road has been delineated in green, including the small area where the generator room is located. The said area adjacent to the school premises, where the generator room is located has, however, been delineated in black in one of the drawings in the same building plan depicting the lay out. This shows that there was no fraudulent intent to claim access through the area where the generator room is located. Moreover, from the photo, the generator room appears to be absolutely new. This Court cannot decide the factual issue of whether any generator room was there at the material time when the plan was submitted for sanction. 9. THE building plan does not show any access to the school premises through the road by the side of the school that leads to Premises Nos. 21A to 21G, Deshapriya Park Road, which is claimed to be a private passage. 9. THE building plan does not show any access to the school premises through the road by the side of the school that leads to Premises Nos. 21A to 21G, Deshapriya Park Road, which is claimed to be a private passage. On the other hand the respondent No.9 has, through counsel, made a categorical assertion that there is a boundary wall all around the school premises and that there is only one access to the school premises, which is from the front, from Deshapriya Park Road. 10. IN fact, a photo was handed up in Court by counsel appearing for the petitioners, which shows an old boundary wall separating the school premises from the alleged private passage as well as the generator room of the adjacent premises. IN the writ petition there is an allegation of attempts to demolish the boundary wall. However the photo produced by the petitioners themselves shows that the boundary wall is intact. It is not for the writ Court to decide whether the alleged private passage is in fact a public thoroughfare or a private passage. Even if it is assumed that a private passage has been depicted in green wash, the question is whether depiction of a private road in green, at all amounts to misrepresentation and if so, whether it amounts to such fraudulent material misrepresentation as to warrant action against the school under section 397 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act. 11. UNDER Rule 9 of the Kolkata Municipal (Building) Rules, 2009, an existing street is to be shown in green. Section 2(82) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act defines 'street' to mean a public or a private street. Rule 9 does not prescribe a separate colour code for a private street. The alleged private passage admittedly leads to different premises owned by different owners and there is no gate regulating entry to the passage. The alleged private passage is apparently a motorable road. Delineation of the private passage in green does not amount to any misrepresentation. 12. IN section 2(71) of the said Act "public street" has been defined to mean any street, road, lane, gully, alley, passage, pathway, square or courtyard, whether a thoroughfare or not, over which the public have right of way. Delineation of the private passage in green does not amount to any misrepresentation. 12. IN section 2(71) of the said Act "public street" has been defined to mean any street, road, lane, gully, alley, passage, pathway, square or courtyard, whether a thoroughfare or not, over which the public have right of way. IN my view, having regard to the wide definition of 'public street' in section 2(71) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, which includes pathways, thoroughfares, lanes and alleys used by the public an open private passage used by members of the public to approach different premises of different owners, some of which might even be used for commercial purposes, may even fall within the definition of 'public street'. However, the question of whether the alleged private passage falls within the definition of 'public street' is not germane to the issues involved in this writ petition, since this Court finds that the Respondent No.9 has not obtained sanction of the building plan by claiming the passage to be a public street. The condition precedent for exercise of power under section 397 is that sanction should have been granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation or any fraudulent statement. For invocation of section 397, two preconditions have to be satisfied. First, there has to be a finding of the Municipal Commissioner of a deliberate false statement either in the notice given or in any information furnished under sections 393, 394 or 395 Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act and secondly, the Municipal Commissioner has to be satisfied that the building plan was sanctioned as a consequence of such deliberate false statement. 13. THERE is a difference between mere mis-statement of fact and a deliberate material misrepresentation and/or fraudulent statement. Mere mis-statement does not warrant exercise of power under section 397. Power under section 397 can only be exercised if the sanction was induced by any material misrepresentation and/or fraudulent statement. 14. IN any case, the petitioner could not have got any advantage by showing the alleged private passage as a public street. It is reiterated that access has not been claimed through the alleged private passage or through Premises No.21A, Deshapriya Park Road. There is a categorical assertion of the Respondent No.9 that there is and there will, in future, be only one access from the front, from Deshapriya Park Road. It is reiterated that access has not been claimed through the alleged private passage or through Premises No.21A, Deshapriya Park Road. There is a categorical assertion of the Respondent No.9 that there is and there will, in future, be only one access from the front, from Deshapriya Park Road. On behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that the private passage could have been shown as a street with a view to get an advantage in computation of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). However, there is already an existing building by the side of the alleged private passage. The new building is being constructed on the vacant land at the back of the premises. The new building proposed to be constructed would be adjacent to Premises Nos. 21A and B, Deshapriya Park Road, Kolkata, and cannot get any FAR advantage because of the passage. 15. THE argument that the private passage could have been shown as a street to get higher floor area, is conjectural cannot be sustained for the reasons discussed above. In any case, it is not the case of the petitioners in the writ petition that the private passage has been claimed to be a public street to get bigger floor area. 16. IT is difficult to appreciate how sanction of any building plan can be induced by misrepresentation of a private passage as a public street, or by suppression of a structure, as alleged, for the veracity of statements made in an application for sanction of building plan is required to be checked and the site is required to be inspected. Whether a street shown is, in fact, a public street or a private passage, or whether any structure exists in or around the site of the proposed building are facts easily ascertainable, on inspection. After this Court inspected the records produced by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and found that the respondent No.9 had not gained any access through the private passage and after the Respondent No.9 categorically asserted through Counsel that there would be only one entrance to the school premises, from the front, from Deshapriya Park Road, Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the proposed building was unsafe, there being inadequate space for fire fighting. The records, however, reveal that building plan has been sanctioned after getting approval of the West Bengal Fire Services authorities. 17. The records, however, reveal that building plan has been sanctioned after getting approval of the West Bengal Fire Services authorities. 17. THE records produced in Court show that on the suggestion of the Fire Services Authorities, the respondent No.9 made arrangements for reservoirs to facilitate fire fighting. This shows that the Fire Services Authorities had duly examined the angles of fire safety before giving approval to sanction of the proposed building plan. It is not for the Writ Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the technically, competent Fire Services Officials and re-examine whether the proposed building is safe or not. 18. IT was also argued that the Fire Services Authorities had given no objection by reason of the private passage having been shown as a public street. The submission is patently conjectural and not supported by materials on record. The records produced do not indicate that the Fire Services Authorities gave approval because of the private passage. In any case, in the case of emergency, the Fire Services Authorities are entitled in law to enter any private property. There is no illegality in taking note of a passage, connecting a number of houses owned by different people, which would always have to be kept vacant. This Court finds no reason to direct the concerned Fire Services Authorities to review the approval. From the records, it appears that there have been some deviations in construction of the building, which have been regularized by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation upon payment of fine, in consideration of the cause of expansion and improvement of a minority missionary school, which imparts primary education to children. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over exercise of discretionary power of a statutory authority to regularize minor deviations in construction. There is a dearth of good schools. Some inconvenience to neighbours is, in my view, no ground enough to stall the construction of a school building which would benefit innumerable children. 19. THIS Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the building plan in exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over administrative decisions of statutory authorities. 19. THIS Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the building plan in exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over administrative decisions of statutory authorities. There is no such patent illegality in exercise of power by the respondent authorities that calls for interference of this Court. 20. THE writ petition cannot be sustained and the same is dismissed. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. All parties are to act on a photostat signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings. Appeal dismissed.