ORDER : S. Abdul Nazeer, J. 1. In this case, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the re-modified plan submitted on 28.7.2014 in terms of the existing building bye-laws as on the date of the application vide circular at Annexure 'D' dated 23.11.2009 within a time frame. 2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Bangalore. It is contended that the petitioner took up construction of ultra modern shopping mall and multiplex with an estimated cost of Rs. 203.58 crores to be met through project loan of Rs. 95 crores and promoters contribution of Rs. 63.54 crores. Pursuant to the revised Master Plan 2015 issued by the Bangalore Development Authority and the Zoning Regulations, a circular at Annexure 'D' dated 23.11.2009 was issued by the 2nd respondent on the basis of the recommendations made by the third respondent in a meeting held on 12.11.2008 regarding relaxation of set backs while sanctioning approval of the building plan under the Rules of Transfer of Developmental Rights ('TDR Rules' for short). On 19.10.2007, petitioner obtained sanction for construction of a commercial complex at site No. 27/66 (Old No. 17), Kempegowda Road, Ward No. 27, Bangalore. The second respondent granted sanction for construction of basement floor, ground floor, mezzanine floor, first, second, third and terrace floor restricting the height to 15 metres as per Annexure 'F', which was valid upto 18.10.2009. The petitioner submitted a modified plan proposing to construct 5 basement floors, ground floor plus five floors restricting the height to 24 metres with three auditoriums as per Annexure 'G'. With an intention to secure certain relaxation in the set back and to increase the number of multiplexes from 3 to 5 along with incremental height to 29.63 metres, petitioner purchased development rights from B.S. Leelavathy. The TDR certificates are produced at Annexure 'H' series dated 23.7.2010. 3. It is further contended that the petitioner was granted loan in principle on the project by the Syndicate Bank, which is evident from the communication at Annexure 'J' dated 17.6.2014. Having secured financial assistance from the Nationalised Bank, subject to sanction of the re-modified plan to be submitted to the second respondent, applied for sanction of the re-modified plan after loading the TDRs seeking relaxation of the set backs as per the circular dated 23.11.2009. Having secured financial assistance from the Nationalised Bank, subject to sanction of the re-modified plan to be submitted to the second respondent, applied for sanction of the re-modified plan after loading the TDRs seeking relaxation of the set backs as per the circular dated 23.11.2009. 4. During the pendency of the petitioner's re-modified plan, the State Government in exercise of power under Section 76-K of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 ('KTCP Act' for short) issued a circular at Annexure 'L' dated 25.9.2014 prescribing certain restrictions regarding relaxation in set backs under Section 14-B of the KTCP Act. In the meantime, Section 14-B of KTCP Act was amended w.e.f. 10.9.2015. 5. It is further contended that the Syndicate Bank considering the proposal submitted has sanctioned the term loan of Rs. 95 crores for the project subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions specified is that the loan amount shall be released only after approval of re-modified plan, additional TDR purchased if any, permission for FAR including additional FAR, if any is obtained from the appropriate authority. A copy of the communication of the Bank is produced at Annexure 'P' dated 3.10.2015. The second respondent considering the sanction of re-modified plan submitted on 28.7.2014, on the basis of the circular dated 23.11.2009 submitted a proposal to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, under the Karnataka Cinema (Regulations) Rules, 2014 ('Cinema Regulations' for short) seeking approval for sanction of five screen multiplex in 6th and 7th floor of the proposed re-modified plan submitted on 28.7.2014. In the said proposal, the second respondent specifically stated that they have no objection for the construction of the five multiplex in the 6th and 7th floor and that the same are within the framework of the existing Zonal Regulations and the bye-laws of the BBMP. The communication issued by the Deputy Commissioner dated 21.7.2015 is at Annexure 'Q'. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, has granted approval for construction of five screen multiplex in 6th and 7th floor under Regulations 31(3) of the Cinemas Regulations as per Annexure 'R' dated 14.12.2015. However, the second respondent has not granted sanction for re-modified plan. 6. Respondent No. 2 has filed objections contending that Government of Karnataka has brought an amendment to Section 14-B of KTCP Act and in the place of Section 14-B, a new substitution to Section 14-B has been brought into KTCP Act. However, the second respondent has not granted sanction for re-modified plan. 6. Respondent No. 2 has filed objections contending that Government of Karnataka has brought an amendment to Section 14-B of KTCP Act and in the place of Section 14-B, a new substitution to Section 14-B has been brought into KTCP Act. Hence, all the existing old Rules including the Rules of Transfer of Developmental Rights stands cancelled and the Government of Karnataka has not yet framed new Rules in so far as TDR is concerned and therefore, the BBMP is not in a position to take any decision for sanction of re-modified plan. By virtue of substitution of Section 14-B, there are certain changes in respect of loading the TDR and by virtue of the said substitution through an amendment, all old circulars issued with regard to TDR stands cancelled and a new Rule has to be framed by the Government. The BBMP has not taken any further steps on the application made by the petitioner for issuance of re-modified plan In view of the above, the second respondent is not in a position to consider the approval of re-modified plan dated 28.7.2014. 7. Sri Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the recommendations of the Plan Verification Committee of the third respondent dated 12.11.2008 regarding relaxation of set backs, the second respondent issued a circular dated 23.11.2009 with regard to the guidelines to be followed for sanction plan under TDR Rules. The petitioner considering the relaxation that it would be entitled to under the circular dated 23.11.2009 submitted a re-modified plan after loading TDR. The said re-modified plan submitted on 28.7.2014 is pending consideration till today without any valid reasons. The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, has in principle approved the re-modified plan in terms of the circular dated 23.11.2009 while granting NOC. Considering the circular dated 23.11.2009, the petitioner has purchased TDR certificates on 23.7.2010 to be loaded to get the relaxation in set back. Similarly, in anticipation of the sanction of re-modified plan in terms of the circular dated 23.11.2009, the term loan has also been sanctioned by the Nationalised Bank. The amendment to KTCP Act vide notification dated 10.9.2015 is prospective in nature. Similarly, in anticipation of the sanction of re-modified plan in terms of the circular dated 23.11.2009, the term loan has also been sanctioned by the Nationalised Bank. The amendment to KTCP Act vide notification dated 10.9.2015 is prospective in nature. Having regard to Section 6 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1897, right, privilege accrued to the petitioner under the un-amended Section 14 of the KTCP Act will not affect the petitioner because of the amendment. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel has relied on the following decisions: "(i) J.S. YADAV v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER, (2011) 6 SCC 570 (ii) VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA, (2015) 4 SCC 33 ." 8. On the other hand, Sri K.N. Puttegowda, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that having regard to the amendment to KTCP Act, the application of the petitioner has to be considered under the amended provisions. No Rules have been framed for effectuating the amended provisions. That is why the second respondent is not in a position to consider the approval of re-modified plan submitted by the petitioner. 9. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned Counsel made at the Bar and perused the materials placed on record. 10. Section 14 of the KTCP Act provides for enforcement of Master Plan and the Regulations. Sub-section (1) of Section 14 states that on and from the date on which a declaration of intention to prepare a Master Plan is published under sub-section (1) of Section 10, every land use, every change in land use and every development in the area covered by the plan subject to Section 14-A shall conform to the provisions of the Act, the Master Plan and the report, as finally approved by the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 13. Section 14-B provides for relaxation of developmental rights seeking relaxation in set backs subject to the conditions specified by the competent authority. Pursuant to the revised Master Plan, a circular was issued by the second respondent on 23.11.2009 on the basis of the recommendation made by the third respondent in a meeting held on 12.11.2008 regarding relaxation of set backs while sanctioning the building plans under the TDR Rules. Pursuant to the revised Master Plan, a circular was issued by the second respondent on 23.11.2009 on the basis of the recommendation made by the third respondent in a meeting held on 12.11.2008 regarding relaxation of set backs while sanctioning the building plans under the TDR Rules. Under these Rules, petitioner submitted a modified plan proposing to construct 5 basement floors, ground floor plus five floors restricting the height to 24 metres with three auditoriums on 16.9.2008. With an intention to secure certain relaxation in the set back and to increase the number of multiplexes from 3 to 5 along with incremental height to 29.63 metres, the petitioner purchased development rights from B.S. Leelavathy. The TDR certificates issued by the second respondent dated 23.7.2010 are at Annexure 'H' series. Petitioner had also applied for financial assistance from Syndicate Bank to finance the project to the extent of Rs. 95 crores and the Syndicate Bank granted loan in principle for the project, which is evident from the communication at Annexure 'J' dated 17.6.2014. It is also clear that the petitioner applied for sanction of re-modified plan after loading the TDRs seeking relaxation of the set backs as per the circular dated 23.11.2009 issued by the second respondent, which was in force. 11. Section 14-B of the Act has been amended w.e.f. 10.9.2015 by Karnataka Act No. 38/2015. It is evident that this amendment has prospective effect. It is no doubt true that Rules have not been framed under Section 14-B of the amended Act. However, this amendment has no application to the instant case. 12. It is settled position that when a particular provision of an Act is in force when particular transaction was effected, then, the subsequent repeal of the statute will not affect the merits, rights or liabilities of the parties on the date of that transaction. A statute affecting vested rights is prima facie prospective unless it expressly or by necessary implication indicates to the contrary. The Legislature has full power to make a law retrospective so as to destroy a right or a remedy altogether but this must be expressly laid down or this result must flow by necessary implication. 13. The word Vest' is normally used where an immediate fixed right in present or future enjoyment in respect of a property is created. The Legislature has full power to make a law retrospective so as to destroy a right or a remedy altogether but this must be expressly laid down or this result must flow by necessary implication. 13. The word Vest' is normally used where an immediate fixed right in present or future enjoyment in respect of a property is created. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.S. YADAV's case (supra), has explained the meaning of the expression Vested right' as under: "21. The word Vest' is normally used where an immediate fixed right in present or future enjoyment in respect of a property is created. With the long usage the said word Vest' has also acquired a meaning as 'an absolute or indefeasible right'. It had a legitimate' or 'settled expectation' to obtain right to enjoy the property, etc. Such 'settled expectation' can be rendered impossible of fulfillment due to change in law by the legislature. Besides this, such a 'settled expectation' or the so-called Vested right' cannot be countenanced against public interest and convenience which are sought to be served by amendment of the law (vide Howrah Municipal Corporation v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd., (2004) 1 SCC 663 ). 22. Thus, Vested right' is a right independent of any contingency. Such a right can arise from a contract, statute or by operation of law. A vested right can be taken away only if the law specifically or by necessary implication provides for such a course." (emphasis supplied by me) 14. Section 6 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act states that repeal of the Act shall not affect any right or privilege accrued or acquired under an enactment so repealed, unless a different intention appears. This Section does not profess to preserve an abstract right accrued under a repealed statute. It would apply to specific rights given to a party consequent on happening of one or the other event as specified in the statute. 15. In VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the amendment of a statute, which is not retrospective in operation, does not affect pending proceedings, except where the amending provision expressly or by necessary intendment provides otherwise. Pending proceedings are to continue as if the un-amended provision is still in force. 15. In VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the amendment of a statute, which is not retrospective in operation, does not affect pending proceedings, except where the amending provision expressly or by necessary intendment provides otherwise. Pending proceedings are to continue as if the un-amended provision is still in force. When a lis commences, all rights and obligations of the parties get crystallized on that date and the mandate of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act simply ensures that pending proceedings under the un-amended provision remain unaffected. 16. Section 14-B of the Act was amended by Karnataka Act No. 38/2015, which has come into effect from 10.9.2015 is not retrospective in operation either expressly or by necessary implication. Therefore, the rights accrued under the repealed enactment are saved and the old procedure will subsist for enforcement of the rights accrued under the repealed enactment. The amended Act does not affect any right, privilege, obligations or liability acquired or incurred under the repealed enactments In fact with an intention to secure certain relaxation in the set back and to increase the number of multiplexes from 3 to 5 along with incremental height to 29.63 meters, petitioner purchased development right from B.S. Leelavathy. The TDR certificates dated 23.7.2010 are at Annexure-H series. The petitioner was also granted loan in principle on the project by the Syndicate Bank, which is evident from the communication at Annexure-J dated 17.6.2014. Having secured the financial assistance from the Nationalised Bank, subject to sanction of the re-modified plan to be submitted to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner applied for sanction of the re-modified plan after loading the TDRs seeking relaxation of the set backs as per the circular at Annexure 'D' dated 23.11.2009. 17. It is also to be stated here that the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District under the Cinema Regulations has granted approval for construction of five screen multiplex in 6th and 7th floor under Regulation 31(3) of the Regulations as per Annexure 'R' dated 14.12.2015. During the pendency of the petitioner's application for grant of re-modified plan, Section 14-B was amended w.e.f. 10.9.2015 prescribing certain restrictions regarding relaxation in the set backs, which has no application to the instant case. During the pendency of the petitioner's application for grant of re-modified plan, Section 14-B was amended w.e.f. 10.9.2015 prescribing certain restrictions regarding relaxation in the set backs, which has no application to the instant case. In my opinion, the 2nd respondent has to consider approval of the re-modified plan submitted on 28.7.2014 in terms of the existing bye-laws as on the date of the application in terms of the circular at Annexure-D dated 23.11.2009. 18. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. I direct the 2nd respondent to consider the approval of re-modified plan submitted by the petitioner on 28.7.2014 under the existing bye-laws as on the date of the application No costs.