Construction Sanction Overturned: Compliance with Current Regulations Prioritized Over Unamended Rules.

Howrah Municipal Corpn. & Others Versus Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. & Others

Howrah Municipal Corpn. & Others Versus Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. & Others - 2003 (6) Suppl. SCR 1212, 2004 (1) SCC 663, 2003 (10) JT 355, 2003 (10) SCALE 1067 Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Howrah Municipal Corporation (HMC) was justified in refusing the sanction for construction of three additional floors based on amended Building Rules.
2. Whether a vested right was created in favor of the respondent company due to the High Court's time-bound orders for sanction consideration.

Summary:

1. Justification of Refusal Based on Amended Building Rules:
The Howrah Municipal Corporation (HMC) challenged the Division Bench judgment which directed the grant of sanction for construction of three additional floors to the respondent's multi-storeyed complex. The Single Judge had denied the sanction based on the amended Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules 1991, which prohibited multi-storeyed construction above one plus two floors on G.T. Road, Howrah. The Division Bench, however, held that the sanction should be granted as the application was made before the amendment and the delay in sanction was due to the Corporation's inaction.

2. Creation of Vested Right Due to High Court Orders:
The respondent company first applied for sanction on 6.7.1992. Due to the Corporation's delay, the company approached the High Court, which directed the Corporation to decide the application within a specified period. The company completed construction up to the 4th floor and sought further sanction for three additional floors. The Corporation delayed the sanction, and during this period, the Building Rules were amended, restricting the height of buildings on G.T. Road. The Corporation refused the sanction based on these amendments.

The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's orders created a vested right for the respondent to obtain sanction based on the unamended rules. It was held that no vested right was created merely by the submission of an application for sanction. The statutory provisions and Building Rules intended to regulate construction activities in public interest and convenience. The Court emphasized that the paramount consideration is public interest, and no vested right can be claimed against statutory provisions.

The Court referred to previous decisions, including Usman Gani J. Khatri of Bombay vs. Cantonment Board and State of West Bengal vs. Terra Firma Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd., which held that building plans must be sanctioned according to the regulations prevailing at the time of sanction, not at the time of application.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Division Bench erred in directing the grant of sanction in violation of the amended Building Rules and the resolution of the Corporation. The appeal by the Corporation was allowed, restoring the Single Judge's order, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.