JUDGMENT : Arijit Banerjee, J. (1) The undisputed facts of the case are as follows. (2) The petitioners Nos. 1 to 8 all being Private Limited Companies, are the owners of premises No. 224, Briji East Kolkata, measuring approximately 49 cottahs equivalent to 3283.91 Sq. Meters. (hereinafter referred to as the “said premises”). The petitioner No. 9 is a director of the petitioners Nos. 1 to 8. (3) On 9th June, 2013, a notification under Section 7(3) of the Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978, was published in the Gazette of India: Extraordinary, for acquisition of certain lands which included a portion of the said premises to the extent of 1428.30 Sq. Meters. It may be noted that under Section 6 of the said 1978 Act, where it appears to a Metro Railway Administration that for the construction of any metro railway or any other work connected therewith, any land, building, street, road or passage or any right of user or any right in the nature of easement therein is required for such construction or work, it may apply to the Central Government for acquiring such land, building, street, road or passage or such right of user or easement. Under Section 7 of the said Act, on receipt of an application under Section 6, the Central Government, after being satisfied that the requirement mentioned therein is for a public purpose, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire the land, building, street, road or passage or the right of user, or the right in the nature of easement therein referred to in the application. The competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in such places and in such manner as may be prescribed. (4) The petitioners challenged the said notification by filing W.P No. 10667 (W) of 2014 in this Court. By a judgment and order dated 10th April, 2014, this Court set aside the said notification. (5) On 23rd April, 2014, the petitioners/companies submitted a building plan to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short ‘KMC’) for sanction of a plan for construction of a ground plus 18 storied building and a ground plus 7 storied building on the said premises. In the said plan the area of 1428.30 Sq. (5) On 23rd April, 2014, the petitioners/companies submitted a building plan to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (in short ‘KMC’) for sanction of a plan for construction of a ground plus 18 storied building and a ground plus 7 storied building on the said premises. In the said plan the area of 1428.30 Sq. Meters out of the said premises was shown as vacant land with no construction thereon, although the proposed acquisition of the said portion of the said premises under Metro Railways Act, 1978 had been set aside. (6) KMC wanted the said area shown as vacant to be encircled. This was done and the building plan was re-submitted on 1st August, 2014. (7) In the said building plan submitted on 1st August, 2014, FAR was calculated by taking into consideration also the FAR of the vacant land and on that basis buildings on both sides of the said vacant land were proposed to be constructed having a total constructed area of 9147.46 Sq. Meters. (8) On 14th August, 2014, the Metro Railways Authority asked the KMC not to furnish any clearance for any kind of construction activities at the said premises. The KMC sat tight over the matter and refused to sanction the said building plan. (9) In the premises, the petitioners in October, 2014 filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 991 of 2014 for immediate sanction of the building plan that was submitted on 1st August, 2014 by the petitioners by ignoring communications from the Metro Railways Authorities and especially the communication dated 14th August, 2014. (10) On the said writ petition an interim order dated 30th October, 2014 was passed by this Court whereby the Municipal Corporation was directed to sanction the plan and hand over the same to the petitioners if the plan was otherwise in order. However, the petitioners were restrained from starting construction in terms of such plan till disposal of the said writ petition. The learned Judge observed in the order that there was sufficient prima facie case to suggest that the Metro Railway was unlikely to issue another notification for acquisition of the self-same land and since fresh acquisition proceedings had not even started, it was improper on the part of the KMC to hold up sanction of the plan on the ground of a proposed action. (11) On 11th December, 2014, during the pendency of W.P No. 991 of 2014, Resolution No. 492 was passed by the Municipal Building Committee (in short ‘MBC’) recommending sanction of the building plan as submitted by the petitioners on 1st August, 2014, in its entirety subject to compliance with other departmental requisitions. It was recorded in the said resolution that there was no violation of building plans as such. The MBC allowed a FAR also in respect of 1428.30 Sq. Meters of land shown as vacant in the said plan in favour of the petitioners. (12) W.P No. 991 of 2014 was finally disposed of by an order dated 26th February, 2015 wherein D. Basak, J. observed that since the KMC had resolved in its Municipal Building Committee meeting to grant sanction, the Municipal Authorities will communicate the quantum of fees payable by the writ petitioners in respect of the grant of such sanction to the petitioners within four weeks from the date of the order. The learned Judge further observed that “on instruction, the learned senior Advocate for the writ petitioners submits that the writ petitioners have submitted the building plan for sanction excluding the area of 1428.30 Sq. Meters that had been sought to be acquired by the Metro Railway Authority’s notification dated 24th December, 2014.” His Lordship also observed that “there is no notification under Section 21 of the Metro Railways Act and, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Metro Railway Authorities had no basis”. (13) At the hearing on 26th February, 2015, the petitioners became aware of a second notification under Section 7 of the Metro Railways Act, 1978. The petitioners have challenged the said second notification dated 24 December, 2014 and such proceeding is pending disposal before this court. (14) After passing of the said order dated 26th February, 2015, the KMC authorities required the petitioners to submit another building plan for part sanction by excluding from construction the portion sought to be acquired by the Metro Railways and the FAR in respect thereof. (15) In order to obtain a part sanction of the building plan as originally prepared by the architect of the petitioners, on 20th March, 2015, the petitioners submitted a building plan to the KMC showing the portion of the land proposed to be acquired by the Metro Railways Authorities as vacant. (15) In order to obtain a part sanction of the building plan as originally prepared by the architect of the petitioners, on 20th March, 2015, the petitioners submitted a building plan to the KMC showing the portion of the land proposed to be acquired by the Metro Railways Authorities as vacant. (16) On 31st March, 2015, part of the building plan was sanctioned and the KMC received sanction fee of Rs.54,87,252/- against such part sanction. (17) On 5th May, 2015, the petitioners filed an application in W.P No. 991 of 2014 being G.A No. 1510 of 2015 for clarification/modification of the order dated 26th February, 2015. By an order dated 12th May, 2015 D. Basak, J. clarified the order dated 26th February, 2015 to the following effect: “In such circumstances, the order dated 26th February, 2015 is clarified by recording that the writ petitioners had submitted a building plan for sanction keeping the area of 1428.300 Sq. Meters sought to be acquired by the Metro Railway Authority’s notification dated December 24, 2014 vacant.” (18) On 26th May, 2015, the petitioners submitted the plan for the balance area and the building. (19) In the aforesaid factual matrix, the petitioners submit that in view of the judgment and order of this Court dated 26th February, 2015 as clarified by the order dated 12th May, 2015 as also in view of the fact that the Municipal Building Committee of the Corporation has approved the plan submitted by the petitioners in its original form, there can be no legitimate reason for the KMC to withhold sanction in respect of the proposed balance construction. It was submitted that the decision of the MBC is binding on the KMC. In this connection, Mr. Anindya Mitra, learned Senior Counsel drew this Court’s attention to Rules 37 to 39 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 2009 which are set out hereunder: “R. 37:- Constitution of Municipal Building Committee. – (1) The Mayor-in-Council shall in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 391, constitute a Municipal Building Committee with the Municipal Commissioner as its Chairman and an officer of the Corporation as its Convener. (2) The Committee shall have, in addition to the Chairman and the Convener, eight other members of whom – (a) One shall be a nominee of the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority. (2) The Committee shall have, in addition to the Chairman and the Convener, eight other members of whom – (a) One shall be a nominee of the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority. (b) One shall be a nominee of the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata. (c) One shall be the Director of the West Bengal Fire Services (or his nominees). (d) One shall be a nominee of the State Government. (e) One shall be the Chief Engineer, Municipal Engineering Directorate, Department of Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal (or his nominee). (f) One shall be an architect of repute to be selected in consultation with the Council of Architecture constituted under section 3 of the Architects Act, 1972 (20 of 1972). (g) One shall be a Town Planner of repute to be selected in consultation with the Institute of Town Planners of India; and (h) One shall be a nominee of the Department of Environment, Government of West Bengal. (3) A member nominated to the Committee shall hold office till an order withdrawing his nomination or for nomination of a successor is received by the Municipal Commissioner from the relevant authority. (4) No act or proceeding of the Committee shall be called into question on the ground of the existence of any vacancy in, or any defect in the constitution of the Committee. (5) The Committee may co opt one person as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 391. R. 38:- Functions of the Municipal Building committee. – (1) The Committee shall in accordance with the provisions of (a) sub-section (5) of section 391 scrutinize every application for erection or re-erection of a building for which notice has been received under section 393 or section 394, except for a residential building to be erected or re-erected on a plot of five hundred square metre or less of land and shall forward its recommendations to the Mayor-in-Council. (2) In case of any building which is intended to be erected at the corner of two streets, the Committee shall, in accordance with provision to sub-section (1) of section 405 scrutinize every such plan and shall forward its recommendations to the Mayor-in-Council. (3) The Committee shall consider and recommend on any other matterincluded in Chapter XXII of the Act as referred to it by the Mayor-in-Council. (3) The Committee shall consider and recommend on any other matterincluded in Chapter XXII of the Act as referred to it by the Mayor-in-Council. (4) The Municipal Commissioner shall as soon as possible communicate to the Committee for its information the decision of the Mayor-in-Council on any of the Committee’s recommendations. (5) The aesthetic quality of urban and environmental designs of structures with respect to every application being scrutinized by it, shall be considered by the Committee, as contained in rule 14, before making its recommendation to the Mayor-in-Council. R. 39:- Recommendations of the Municipal Building Committee. – (1) The Municipal Commissioner shall, as early as possible, communicate the recommendations of the Committee to the Mayor-in-Council along with dissenting notes, if any, for its considerations in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 39V and its decision in accordance with the second proviso to subsection (1) of section 396. (2) No person shall divulge any recommendations of the Municipal Building Committee to any person other than one entitled to know it for official purpose only during the processing of such recommendation. (3) The Mayor-in-Council shall consider the recommendation of the Committee and may accept the same or in case of non-acceptance or any modification, alteration or cancellation of the same shall record the reasons thereof, within 30 (thirty) days from the date of communication of such recommendations. (4) The Municipal Commissioner shall communicate the decision of the Mayor-in-Council to the applicant within 7 (seven) days from the date of resolution of the Mayor-in-Council.” (20) Mr. Mitra referred to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation versus Arunendra Nath Banerjee, (1996) 2 CLT 81, in support of his submission that once the MBC has cleared a building plan for sanction, the Municipal Commissioner has no discretion in the matter and is bound to grant sanction to the building plan and communicate such sanction to the applicant. The act that remains for the Municipal Commissioner to do once the MBC grants its approval to a plan, is a merely ministerial act and there is no power in the Municipal Commissioner to withhold sanction. (21) Mr. The act that remains for the Municipal Commissioner to do once the MBC grants its approval to a plan, is a merely ministerial act and there is no power in the Municipal Commissioner to withhold sanction. (21) Mr. Mitra submitted that after the MBC has given its recommendation for sanction of the building plan that had been submitted by the petitioners on 23rd April, 2014 and re-submitted on 1st August, 2014 with the proposed metro alignment indicated in Red border therein, the respondents are bound to sanction such building plan and communicate the quantum of fee payable for such sanction. He submitted that the petitioners have paid sanction fee of Rs.54,87,252/- for the sanction of a part of the building plan as originally submitted which covers an area of 6174.42 Sq. Metres. The original building plan approved by the MBC was in respect of a constructed area of 9147.46 Sq. Metres. Hence, according to Mr. Mitra the sanction fee for the balance area of 2973.04 Sq. Metres (9147.46 Sq. Metres minus 6174.42 Sq. Metres) was to be calculated by the KMC and upon communication of the said amount, the petitioners would pay the same and obtain sanction of the building plan. (22) Appearing on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, learned Advocate drew this Court’s attention to page 24 of the writ petition which is a map of the concerned site. The disputed area is the one on which pillars are shown. Construction of Metro Railways is proposed to be on this strip. He submitted that since construction is proposed to be made by the Metro Railways on this strip of land, the FAR in respect of the said strip of land would be consumed by the Metro Railways. Hence, no FAR in respect of the said strip of land can be granted in favour of the writ petitioners. (23) Mr. Mukherjee, further submitted that in compliance of the direction passed by D. Basak, J. in W.P No. 991 of 2014, the KMC has already sanctioned the revised building plan submitted by the petitioners being plan No. 2014110648 dated 31st March, 2015 for construction of G+XIV building on the effective land area of 1855.61 Sq. Metres (excluding the 1428.30 Sq. Mukherjee, further submitted that in compliance of the direction passed by D. Basak, J. in W.P No. 991 of 2014, the KMC has already sanctioned the revised building plan submitted by the petitioners being plan No. 2014110648 dated 31st March, 2015 for construction of G+XIV building on the effective land area of 1855.61 Sq. Metres (excluding the 1428.30 Sq. Metres of land sought to be acquired by the Metro Railway Authority vide notification dated 24th December, 2014) where the petitioners have almost fully consumed FAR equal to 2.9036 (permissible FAR =3.00). Therefore, additional plan proposal cannot be allowed due to non-availability of FAR on effective land area. (24) Learned Counsel for the Corporation further submitted that the disputes in the writ petition can be adjudicated only in the presence of the Metro Railway Authority. The said Authority has published a notification under Section 7(1) of the Metro Railways Act, 1978, for acquiring the said area of 1428.30 Sq. Metres for the purpose of construction of metro railway from New Goria to Titumir station. He submitted that approval of the building plan as submitted by the petitioners by the MBC does not confer any right on the petitioners to get sanction of the plan in their favour. The Mayor-in-Council has to first approve the building plan. The recommendation of the MBC is not binding on the Mayor-in-Council. Hence, this Court cannot direct the Municipal Commissioner to sanction the plan in question. (25) I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. (26) Sanction of a building plan is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the KMC. The KMC is the supreme authority for granting or refusing sanction of a building plan in respect of land to which the KMC Act, 1980 applies. The grounds for refusing sanction have been mentioned in Section 396 of the KMC Act. It is not the stand of the KMC that any of such grounds for refusing sanction exists in so far the building plan in question is concerned. The Municipal Authority has to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the parent statute and they cannot refuse sanction of a building plan if the conditions prescribed in the statute and the Rules framed thereunder are satisfied. The Municipal Authority has to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the parent statute and they cannot refuse sanction of a building plan if the conditions prescribed in the statute and the Rules framed thereunder are satisfied. (27) The Metro Railway Authorities have no role to play in the matter of granting or withholding sanction to a building plan in respect of land to which KMC Act, 1980 applies. Such matter is within the exclusive domain of the KMC. In my opinion, in the facts of the case, the Metro Railway Authorities are illegally purporting to impose their views on the KMC, which is not permissible in law. KMC having been vested with the exclusive power and authority in the matter of grant or refusal of sanction to a building plan, KMC must come to an independent decision in such matter uninfluenced by extraneous factors or decisions of other authorities. KMC must not act as per the dictates of the Metro Railway Authorities in the matter of granting or refusing sanction to the building plan in question. That would amount to unlawful abdication of its power in favour of the Metro Railway Authorities, which cannot be countenanced in law. (28) Once the Municipal Building Committee of the KMC accords approval to a building plan, the same along with recommendations, if any, are to be communicated to the Mayor-in-Council, as soon as possible, by the Municipal Commissioner. The Mayor-in-Council shall consider the recommendation of the MBC and may accept the same or in case of non-acceptance or any modification, alteration or cancellation of the same, shall record the reasons therefor, within 30 days from the date of communication of such recommendation. The Municipal Building Committee constitutes of eminent members from the fields of engineering, town-planning, fire services, Department of Environment, architecture etc. It is a specialized body. The recommendation of the MBC is ordinarily not interfered with by the Mayor-in-Council. (29) In the instant case, the MBC passed resolution No. 492 recommending sanction of the building plan as submitted by the petitioners on 1st August, 2014, in its entirety, subject to compliance with other departmental requisitions. It is not the case of KMC that the Mayor-in-Council has rejected or in any way modified the recommendation of the MBC. (29) In the instant case, the MBC passed resolution No. 492 recommending sanction of the building plan as submitted by the petitioners on 1st August, 2014, in its entirety, subject to compliance with other departmental requisitions. It is not the case of KMC that the Mayor-in-Council has rejected or in any way modified the recommendation of the MBC. Rule 39 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 2009 enjoined on the Municipal Commissioner a duty to communicate the recommendations of the MBC to the Mayor-in-Council as early as possible. The said Rule also imposes an obligation on the Mayor-in-Council to accept or reject or modify the MBC’s recommendation within 30 days from the date of communication of MBC’s recommendations. If the recommendations of the MBC in the instant case have not been communicated to the Mayor-in-Council till date or if in spite of such communication the Mayor-in-Council has not given a decision in the matter within 30 days of receipt of such communication, it is the problem of the KMC and the applicants should not be made to suffer for the inaction on the part of the KMC. (30) In fact, I would go to the extent of saying that if the recommendation of the MBC is not communicated by the Municipal Commissioner to the Mayor-in-Council ‘as early as possible’ or if in spite of such communication the Mayor-in-Council does not give its decision within 30 days of receipt of the communication, then and in that event, the requirement of approval of the MBC’s recommendation by the Mayor-in-Council would be deemed to have been waived by the KMC. The term ‘as early as possible’ means as soon as is reasonably feasible. If one gives a more charitable interpretation to the said term, it would mean ‘within a reasonable period of time’. In the instant case, more than one year has elapsed since the MBC approved and recommended its sanction of building plan in question. If still the MBC’s recommendations have not been communicated to the Mayor-in-Council, the requirement of the approval of the Mayor-in-Council will be deemed to have been waived. Consequently, the Municipal Commissioner will be bound to sanction the building plan in accordance with the recommendations of the MBC. If still the MBC’s recommendations have not been communicated to the Mayor-in-Council, the requirement of the approval of the Mayor-in-Council will be deemed to have been waived. Consequently, the Municipal Commissioner will be bound to sanction the building plan in accordance with the recommendations of the MBC. (31) Further, in His Lordship’s order dated 26th February, 2015, D. Basak, J. directed the Municipal Authorities to communicate the quantum of fees payable by the petitioners in respect of grant of sanction of the plan in question. Such direction was given on the basis that the MBC at its meeting had recommended grant of sanction to the building plan in question. No contention was advanced on behalf of the KMC that the matter required further approval of the Mayor-in-Council. Even when the matter came up before D. Basak, J. on 12th May, 2015 for clarification of the order dated 26th February, 2015, no contention was raised on behalf of the KMC that the Mayor-in-Council was yet to give its decision in the matter. The order dated 26th February 2015 as clarified by the order dated 12th May, 2015 constitutes a direction on the KMC to sanction the building plan in question in its original form. There was no appeal from the said orders and the same have attained finality as between the parties. The KMC is bound by the said order dated 26th February, 2015 as clarified by the order dated 12th May, 2015. (32) The MBC by its resolution dated 11th December, 2014 allowed FAR in favour of the petitioners also in respect of 1428.300 sq. metres of land shown as vacant in the building plan in question as submitted by the petitioners on 1st August, 2014. In the absence of interference with the same by the Mayor-in-Council, the same is binding on the Municipal Commissioner. (33) The second notification dated 24 December, 2014 issued under Section 7 of the Metro Railways Act, 1978, should not stand in the way of the KMC sanctioning the building plan in question. The said Notification is under challenge in a Writ Petition pending in this Court but although there is no interim order of stay of operation of the said Notification or any order to similar effect, no action has been taken by the Authorities concerned on the basis of such Notification till date. The 1428.30 sq. The said Notification is under challenge in a Writ Petition pending in this Court but although there is no interim order of stay of operation of the said Notification or any order to similar effect, no action has been taken by the Authorities concerned on the basis of such Notification till date. The 1428.30 sq. metres of land in question has not yet vested in the Central Government nor any notification has been issued by the Central Government under Section 21 of the Metro Railways Act. Pending of the acquisition proceeding for an indefinite period of time without the same being carried to its logical conclusion should not be a ground for the KMC to withhold sanction of the building plan in question. Needless to say that in the event the acquisition proceeding is successfully completed or a Notification under Section 21 of the Metro Railways Act is issued, the legal consequences will follow and the Writ Petitioners will have to deal with the same. (34) For the reasons aforestated, this writ application succeeds. There shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the writ petition. The Corporation shall communicate the writ petitioners the amount of fees payable within 10 days from date. Upon receipt of such communication the petitioners shall deposit the requisite fees within seven days. The Corporation shall sanction the building plan in question within two weeks of receipt of such fees. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall, however, be no order as to costs. (35) WP No. 908 of 2015 is accordingly disposed of. (36) Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.