Judgment:
ORDER
Hari Nath Tilhari, J
1. By this Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.9.1994, passed by the District Magistrate, Shimoga, whereby, the District Magistrate cancelled the No Objection Certificate dated 29.12.1992, taking the view that the applicant has neither commenced the construction of the cinema house within a period of 12 months from the date of the No Objection Certificate nor has applied for extension of time under Rule 28(3) of the Karnataka Cinema Regulations 1971, after having remitted a sum of Rs. 1000/- as fee to the Government under a receipt for the same.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is the owner in possession of the land bearing Sy.No. 19/3-B-2 of Gopala Village, Shimoga District measuring 1877.75 sq. meters and he made the application to the District Magistrate for the issue of a No Objection Certificate under the Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1971, (for short 'Rules, 1971'), to enable the petitioner to construct the cinema building. That the Licensing Authority after making all enquiries and having been satisfied with the compliance of the Rules 1971 by the petitioner, issued No Objection Certificate on 29.12.1992, vide Annexure-A to this Writ Petition. Further, according to the petitioner's case, the petitioner moved the application for the approval of the building plan to the Licensing Authority as required by Rule 30 of the Cinema Rules, 1971, on 16.9.1993, as per Annexure-B. That it appears the Executive Engineer, Shimoga, approved the plan subject to certain conditions and issued a letter on 18.9.1994, which is marked as Annexure-D.
The petitioner sent the electrical plan in respect of the said building to the respondent vide covering letter dated 7.8.1994. Thereafter, the matter remained pending with the authorities which had to grant approval under Chapter 5 of the Cinema Rules, as so far no orders have been passed as per Rule 32. That the petitioner could not commence the construction work without approval of the plan and issuing of licence, so, he made a representation to extend the period of the No Objection Certificate vide Annexure-F on 10.8.1994. On 3.9.1994, vide Annexure-G, the petitioner was informed that the applications submitted by the petitioner for extension of time of No Objection Certificate was rejected and the No Objection Certificate dated 29.12.1992, has been cancelled.
Feeling aggrieved from that order, the petitioner has filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. On behalf of the opposite party, the District Magistrate, who is the Licensing Authority, appearance has been put by Sri N. Devadas, learned Government Advocate.
I have heard the petitioner's Counsel Sri M.P. Eshwarappa, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.G. Nayak, an Advocate of this Court as well as Sri N. Devadas - the learned Government Advocate.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended before me that Annexure-G to this Writ Petition suffers from as refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested on one hand and on the other, cancelling No Objection Certificate really is illegal and submitted that a reading of the necessary provisions will lead to the conclusion of law to the effect that no construction of cinema can be made without permission being granted by the Licensing Authority in view of Section 11 of the Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Act and the Rules. That in the matter of construction of the building for exhibition of cinemas etc., it has been provided that an application for permission to construct the Cinema building or to use a place for cinematograph is to be made and necessary permission to be obtained from the Licensing Authority. That the Rules framed thereunder have got to be read along with the principal Sections and nothing which runs counter to the intention of the Legislature as indicated particularly in Section 11 can be said to nullify the right of the petitioner in this regard. That when the building could not be constructed under the Act, whether it would be open to an Authority to cancel No Objection Certificate on the ground of failure to start construction. This is a material factor which has to be taken into consideration while interpreting Rules 28 and 32. The learned Counsel submitted that No Objection Certificate in law could not be deemed to have abated or to have been cancelled in the present case under Rule 28(2). Further, Shri Eshwarappa, learned Senior Advocate submitted that when the law provides that within 12 months period from the date of application, the construction has got to be completed, then, that Rule cannot be interpreted to mean that construction has got to be commenced or completed without obtaining the approval of the Licensing Authority under Chapter 5. So, Shri Eshwarappa, submitted that time consumed in disposing off application for grant of approval to plan is not to be counted or included in computing the period of 12 months which is provided under Rule 28. The period during which a person is not able to construct the building on account of non-granting or within the time consumed by authorities in granting approval to the plan, the benefit or margin thereof is to be granted to person concerned such as petitioner in computing the twelve months period, and as the approval of the plan has not been granted in the case till now, the period of 12 months cannot be deemed to have come to end and under Rule 28(2) contained in Chapter 5 of the Cinema Rules as it will be doing injustice. That it is well settled principle of law of the Welfare State that no person or no citizen Should be made to suffer because of the fault or inaction or failure to take action according to law by the authorities and for no fault of his own. Whereas, the petitioner cannot be punished for which he may not have been responsible. That as such, cancelling the No Objection Certificate is illegal and without jurisdiction. That there was no need to move an application for extension of time and to pay Rs. 1000/- as fee for that purpose in the present case. That even as the application had been moved, the No Objection Certificate already granted could not be cancelled. As such, the order of the Licensing Authority cancelling the No Objection Certificate is bad and requires to be quashed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further relied on a Decision of this Court in AMAR NATH OM PRAKASH v. STATE OF PUNJAB : [1985]2SCR72 .
5. The learned Govt. Advocate - Shri Devadas submitted that under the amended Rule 28(3), the petitioner should have applied for extension of time by paying a sum of Rs. 1000/- and if he did not do so, there was nothing wrong on the part of the authority in refusing to extend the time. That Rule 28(2) is to be taken literal legis and it will be entering into the field of legislation if it is taken that time consumed by authority in granting approval of building plan is to be excluded as contended by the petitioner's Counsel.
I have applied my mind to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner - Sri M.P. Eshwarappa and Sri Devadas and before I proceed further, it will be better, just and proper to refer to the provisions contained in the Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Act and the Rules.
A reading of the Preamble of the Karnataka Cinema Act, 1964 indicates that the Act has been enacted to provide for regulation of exhibition by means of cinematographs and the licensing of places in which cinematograph films are exhibited in the State of Karnataka and for other matters. Under Section 3 of the Act, it has been provided that the authority having power to grant licences under this Act shall in every District be the District Magistrate. The Explanation in the context of Section 3 provides that the District Magistrate means, the Deputy Commissioner excercising the powers of District Magistrate or Additional District Magistrate. Section 5 of the Act deals with the licences for exhibition of cinematographs film. It is provided that Licensing Authority may refuse or grant the licence by an order communicated to the applicant giving reasons. Section 6 prescribes what are the matters to be taken into consideration by the Licensing Authority, while granting or rejecting application for grant of licence. That Sections 11 and 16 of the Act are material for purpose of the case as it is provided therein with reference to construction or reconstruction of building or use of places that it is to be done for the purpose of use as cinema theatre only after obtaining the permission of the Licensing Authority and in accordance therewith, otherwise, the same is an offence punishable. Sections 11 and 16 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964, read as under:
11. Construction or reconstruction of buildings or use of places for exhibition of cinematograph films only to be made after obtaining permission of licensing authority,
(1) Any person, who intends -
(a) to use any place for the exhibition of cinematograph films; or
(b) to use any site for constructing a building thereon for the exhibition of cinematograph films; or
(c) to construct or reconstruct any building for such exhibition; or
(d) to install any machinery in any place where cinematograph exhibitions are proposed to be given ; shall make an application in writing to the licensing authority for permission therefor, together with such particulars as may be prescribed.
(2) No provision contained in the enactments specified in the Schedule or any other for the time being in force regulating the erection or construction of buildings, or in the rules or bye-laws made under any such enactment, or law shall apply to an application under Sub-section (1) in so far as such provision relates to any of the matters specified in the said sub-section.
(3) The licensing authority shall, thereupon, after consulting such authority or officer as may be prescribed, grant or refuse permission and the provisions of Section 6, Section 8 and Section 10 relating to licenses shall so far as may be, apply to permission under this section.
16. Penalties:- (1) If the owner or person in charge of a cinematograph uses the same or allows it to be used, or if the owner or occupier of any place permits or suffers that place to be used, in contravention of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder or of any of the conditions and restrictions upon or subject to which any licence or permission has been granted under this Act, or of any conditions or restrictions specified in an order under Section 20, or if any person contravenes the provisions of Section 11 or any other provisions of this Act or rule made thereunder, he shall, on conviction, be punished with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or in the case of a continuing offence, with a further fine, which may extend to one hundred rupees for each day during which the offence continues.
(2) Where after a prosecution for an offence under Sub-section (1) has been commenced, the licensing authority has reason to believe that the holder of the licence is again committing the offence or continues to commit it, the licensing authority may, by notice, warn the holder of the licence not to continue the offence. If the holder of the licence shall persist in committing the offence, the licensing authority may suspend the licence, pending the result of the prosecution.'
6. Section 19 of the Act confers rule making power on the State of Karnataka and it provides vide Sub-section 1 thereof that the State Government may by Notification after previous publication, make Rules to carry out the purposes of this Act. Sub-section 2 of Section 19 further provides in particular power to make Rule in subjects specified without prejudice to the generality of the power mentioned in Sub-section 1 whereas, Rules 25, 26, 27, 28 & 29 of the Karnataka Cinema Regulations Rules, 1971, deal with the matter of No Objection Certificate in the sense of approval for location of permanent cinema. Rule 27 of the Rules provides the conditions subject to fulfilment of which No Objection Certificate can be granted. Rules 30 to 33, contained in Chapter V, deal with the matter of the approval of plan of building. Rules contained in Chapter VI, provide for the approval of the building construction, issuance, grant or refusal of licence for exhibiting the cinematograph and the matters allied thereto. Rule 27 of the Rules provide for the condition of grant of No Objection Certificate. Rule 28 of the Rules read as under:
'28. Grant of No Objection Certificate:- (1): The licensing authority shall, (subject to Section 6 and orders, if any, made by him under Section 7) if satisfied that the site fulfills all the conditions specified in Rule 27, grant to the applicant a No Objection Certificate in form 'D' for the construction of the Cinema building. The Certificate shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of commencement of the construction of the building. The licensing authority on an application made to him in this behalf, if satisfied, that the applicant could not for valid reasons, complete the building within the said period of two years, may extend the validity of such certificate by period not exceeding one year.
(2) The applicant shall, within twelve months from the date of the certificate, commence construction of the building. The licensing authority may, on an application made to it in this behalf if satisfied that the applicant cannot for valid reasons commence construction of the building within the said period, extend the period by period not exceeding six months. If construction of the building is not commenced within the said period of twelve months or the extended period, if any, the certificate shall on the expiry of the said period, stand abated.
Then, by the amendment Sub-rules 3 and 4 were added to Rule 28 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 vide the Amending Rules of 1990 and it is provided:
Sub-rule (3): 'In case a No Objection Certificate holder has not commenced or completed the construction of the cinema building within the period specified under Sub-rules (1) and (2) and requires further extension of the period for commencement or completion of the cinema building, he shall make an application to the licensing authority thirty days before the date of expiry of the No Objection Certificate. Such application shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees one thousand.
Sub-rule (4): On receipt of application under Sub-rule (3), the licensing authority, if satisfied that there are valid reasons to extend the period of validity of the No Objection Certificate may extend the period not exceeding one year.'
7. As mentioned earlier, Chapter V containing Rules 30 to 33 deal with the approval or refusal of approval plan submitted by a person.
A perusal of Rule 30 will per se show that the copy of the No Objection Certificate granted under Rule 28 has to be furnished along with the copy of the approved site etc. as mentioned in Rule 30, to the authority (Licensing Authority) by the person desiring to construct the cinema building. Thereafter the Licensing Authority calls for report under Rule 31 and Rule 32 provides that it is on the receipt of report under Rule 31, the Licensing Authority has to grant or refuse the licence. Rule 32 reads as under:-
'32. Grant or refusal of approval of plan:- On receipt of the reports under Rule 31, the licensing authority shall, on being satisfied that all the requirements of these rules are fulfilled, approve the plan of the building and grant a licence. If he is satisfied that the requirement of these rules are not fulfilled, he shall refuse the licence. The order of the Licensing Authority under this rule, shall be in writing and shall contain reasons in brief for the decision.'
Rule 33 further provides that Licensing Authority shall communicate his order to the applicant within a period of 30 days after the receipt of the report referred in Sub-rule 3 of Rule 31.
8. Like Section 11, Sections 6, 8 and 10 relating to licence shall as far as may also apply to matter of grant of permission. So, in nutshell the basic principle under Sections 11 and 16 of the Act is that no person has got a right to use a place either for exhibiting or for constructing or reconstructing any building for exhibiting cinematograph or for installing a machine for such exhibition, except with permission in writing of the Licensing Authority. However, even if a person intends to build or construct a cinema theatre or a building, he cannot do so without approval of plan and permission of the Licensing Authority communicated to him. Now the question for consideration is how is period of twelve months referred to in Rule 28(2) to be computed? If a person applies for No Objection Certificate and the same is granted to him and thereafter the No Objection Certificate Holder applies along with No Objection Certificate, to Licensing Authority for approval of plan to construct building etc. and thereafter time is consumed by authority in the matter of granting approval to building plan etc. under Rules 30 to 33 without which construction work cannot be commenced as such is the Holder of No Objection Certificate entitled to exclusion of that period for which he was not to be blamed for not commencing the construction work?
9. Rule 28(2) provides that the applicant in whose favour, No Objection Certificate is granted shall within 12 months from the date of Certificate, commence construction of the building. It further provides that the Licensing Authority may on an application being made in this behalf and if the authority is satisfied that applicant could not for valid reasons commence the construction of building within the. period, extend the period by 6 months more, otherwise, the original period of 12 months shall stand abated. But, the further question before this Court is how this period of 12 months from the date of No Objection Certificate is to be constituted in the context of expression 'commence construction of building'. While, Rule 30 provides that no application for approval of plan can be made earlier than the receipt of No Objection Certificate and further provides that while making the application for approval of the plan of the building must be the approved site and the copy of No Objection Certificate have to be annexed thereby. If the question as to the approval of plan remains pending and is not disposed of not because of any fault of the applicant himself, but on account of inaction or negligence of the authorities, then, the authorities must exclude that period in computing 12 months under Rule 28(2). Whereas, in the present case if Rule 28(2) is taken in literal sense that it means that irrespective of what is contained in Sections 11 and 16 of the Act and the provisions of Rules contained in Chapter-V and other Rules, he must commence the construction even in breach of law and this may lead to absurdity and conflict of the Rule with the main provision, i.e., Sections 11 & 16 of the Act and may render the Rule to be illegal and inoperative as such it could be just and proper, as well as the duty of the Court to interpret the Rule in an harmonious manner which may neither render the Rule nugatory or ultravires nor cause injustice to a party so as to lead to absurdity.
When I observe as above, I find support from what has been stated in the treatise 'Legislation and Interpretation (IV Ed.) by learned Author Sri Jagish Swaroop at page 806 as under:
'Where a literal construction of statutory rules would render them ultra vires of rule making authority, they must be so construed as to be intra vires and held valid rather than be construed as ultra vires and initially void' and made a reference to the decisions of their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. THE MEWAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. : [1969]1SCR845 and T.S. MANKAD v. STATE OF GUJARAT : [1970]1SCR244 .'
The learned author Sri Jagdish Swaroop in Legislation & Interpretation (IV Ed.) further observes at page 807 - 'where the Act is plain, the Rules must if possible be reconciled with it or if that cannot be done the rules must give way to the plain terms of the Act'-----. If there would be conflict between a Section and a Rule or between the statute and the Rule enacted under it, obviously the statute must prevail over it.' It is also another well settled principle that the Rules framed under an Act have got to be construed and be interpreted in the light of the provisions of the Act as well as within the scope and ambit of the Act so as to avoid their becoming ultra vires.
9-A. There is a famous maxim as observed in Broom's Legal Maxims at Page 599 of its X Ed., v. Reprint 'VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMENTIBUS JURA SUBVENTUNT' which in English means The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights'.
In the context of the above at Page 606 of above Broom's Legal Maxims it has been stated with reference to limitation as under: -
'It would not be consistent with plan of this work to consider in detail the numerous points with which the various statutes of limitation bristle. There is however one maxim which naturally suggests itself in this place and which is illustrated by the provisions with respect to cases of disability, which suspend the ordinary operation of statute until the disability is removed. The maxim alluded to it expressed thus: 'Contra non valentem agere nulla currit proescriptio.' The prescription does not run against a party who is unable to act for instance in the case of a debt, it only begins to run from the time when creditor has right to institute his suit because no delay can be imputed to him 'before that time'. The principle that can be derived as one laid down is that if limitation for doing certain Act is prescribed and cause of action is found to have accrued to one who is unable to act and suffers from certain legal disability and so unable to act then limitation prescribed may remain suspended and delay cannot be imputed to him.
10. Keeping the above principles in view, a reading of Rule 28(2) of the Rules of 1971, along with provisions of the Act including Sections 11 & 16 of the Act leads me to the conclusion that the period during which the application moved by an applicant for approval of the plan under Rule 30 of the Rules remains pending for consideration and is not disposed of by the Licensing Authority shall be and have to be excluded from the period of 12 months as if the said period of limitation remained suspended during the period the application seeking approval remained pending and this period consumed by the authority is to be added in the period of 12 months in the sense that after obtaining No Objection Certificate, if the applicant moves the application for approval of plan within that period, then, atleast the period from the date of moving of application for approval of plan till he gets the permission and approval for putting construction has to be excluded from period of 12 months prescribed by Rule 28(2), i.e., in other words, the period during which application under Rule 30 of the Rules remains undisposed of is to be deemed to be the period during which, limitation prescribed by Rule 28(2} will not be considered to run instead will remain suspended and the licensee will automatically be entitled to addition of that period by necessary implication. In my opinion the intention of the framers of Rule appears to be that a person after obtaining the No Objection Certificate and permission should not sit idle in the matter of commencing of construction ordinarily and if he does not sit idle for his own fault but because of disability he is unable to commence the construction he is not to be saddled with its evil consequences. Where, the applicant had applied in time and the permission is not granted, matter was kept pending or was granted on certain date may be after ordinary expiry of 12 months period, then, the period will be deemed to have suspended to run and period not be deemed to have expired. It is so as till that licence to construct cinema building is granted by approval of the plan by the Licensing Authority, Section 11 read with Section 16 of the Act prohibits the construction or reconstruction of theatre etc. and so till the expiry of 12 months period thus calculated the No Objection Certificate cannot in the eye of law be taken to have expired. The view that I take to the effect that during the period the holder of No Objection Certificate granted under Rule 28 of the Rules, suffers disability on account of the restraint under law which did disable him from making new construction for exhibition of Cinema as per Sections 11 and 16 of the Act, limitation prescribed by Rule 28(2) of the Rules, shall remain suspended and will not be deemed to have expired finds support from the following view and observations of the Full Bench of High Court of Uttar Pradesh, i.e. Allahabad High Court in case of BADAL v. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 1970 ALJ 610 where the four of the Hon'ble Judges constituting the Full Bench held as under:- per Hon'ble G.D. Seghal, J,
'That law of limitation is based on the principle that the law helps the vigilant. It is based on the principle that a person who has acquiesced in a certain state of affairs without caring for his rights, should be deemed to have given up his right after acquiescence in such a state of affair for reasonable time so that the affairs of men may be regulated on supposition that his right which he has not cared to enforce, has ceased to exist.
On this principle if the law does not allow him to initiate or pursue his remedy for the vindication of that right, how can it be said that he has not been vigilant or that he has acquiescence in state of affairs without caring to get his right vindicated;
The Limitation, therefore should cease to run during the period he has been disabled under the law to pursue his remedy. Even if the Limitation Act does not contain any specific provisions to the effect that limitation will cease to run in such cases, on the general principle the period of limitation stands suspended during the period a litigant is left without a remedy.'
Hon'ble Lakshmi Prasad, J:
In the above mentioned case of Badal observes as per para 22 as under:-
'So there is no escape from the conclusion that from the date of notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Limitation for a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, would stand suspended till the right to sue there under gets, revived. Of course that would be so only where limitation for filing a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms Act had not already run out but was still there on the date of notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1954.'
Hon'ble G.S. Lal and Hon'ble Mr. O.P. Trivedi, J.J also in above noted Badal case, laid down the doctrine of suspension of the period of limitation and their observations are as under:
Hon'ble G.S. Lal J. Observed:
'I agree that Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act bars also a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and that upon a notification being issued under Section 4 of the former Act, the running of the period of limitation is suspended for the purposes of both Sections 209 and 21 Oof the latter Act.
Hon'ble P.P. Trivedi J: has been pleased to observe as under:
'The result of such a bar would be that the forum provided by Section 209 of the Act will be frozen or placed in partial eclipse while the consolidation operations last and therefore, if the forum is not available in that duration then limitation should be deemed to be in suspension.
Thus it appears to be settled principle of law that if certain period is prescribed during which some act is to be done but if because of some bar or disability coupled with operation the person concerned is unable to do or perform his role because of some statutory disability, fault or deficiency then in that case the limitation, during that period should be deemed to be under suspension. The question of moving application for extension of time may only arise, where on account of some reason other than the statutory bar or disability created under the Act a person could not commence the construction within the period prescribed.'
Thus, construed in my opinion the 12 months period prescribed under Rule 28 is the actual period which should be at his disposal for the commencement of construction of the building for cinema theatre free from any statutory bar and from any other bar on account of inaction of the authority. The view I have taken finds support from the Decision of this Court in H.C. BHOGEGOWDA v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA. : AIR1985Kant218
11. Thus considered in the present case, I am of the opinion that No Objection Certificate had been granted in favour of the petitioner on 29.12.1992 and the petitioner had moved the application before the Licensing Authority for the approval of the building plan on 16.9.1993. That application for approval of the building plan having not been disposed of and kept pending as asserted in this Writ Petition and no order granting or refusing to grant that approval having been communicated to the petitioner till now, in my opinion, the Licensing Authority (District Magistrate) has erred in taking the view on account of that the period of 12 months had expired, and that the applicant did not start construction of the cinema building nor did he apply for extension nor did he pay the necessary charges on theapplication for extension, so, the No Objection Certificate automatically stood abated and so, there is no question of granting extension, it was really, a case of no action on the part of Licensing Authority and, it is a case in which only 8 months and 15 days period had expired on 16.9.1993, i.e., on the date of moving application for approval of the building plan and there was no question of expiration of even 12 months period even at worst, applicant had to his credit the remaining period of 3 months and 15 days available with him for the purpose of commencing construction from the moment the bar under Sections 11 and 16 of the Act would have stood removed by the grant of permission to construct by approval of plan under Rules 30 to 32 of Rules,
12. In this view of the matter, neither the period of 12 months in my opinion has stood expired nor can the petitioner be blamed to have committed a default in not commencing the construction. Therefore, there was no need to move application for extension of the period, as the question of extension of the period could only arise if approval would have been granted and the period of 12 months thus for the commencement of construction would have also expired for some reason or the other. The reasoning and the grounds on which the Licensing Authority has cancelled the No Objection Certificate, appears to be contrary to law and is based on misapprehension of law. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that the order of cancellation of No Objection Certificate is without jurisdiction and suffers from error of law apparent on the face of the record as has been passed in an illegal manner without applying the mind to the law and failure of the authority itself to dispose of the application for grant of approval of plan of building. As such, as mentioned earlier time will continue to run for atleast a period of 3 months 15 days from the date of grant of permission and the No Objection Certificate cannot be deemed to have abated in the eye of law. Thus considered, this Writ Petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order is quashed.
13. I am further of the opinion that the matter has become delayed from 16.9.1993, and more than 1 year time has elapsed and the opposite party - District Magistrate, who is a Licensing Authority has not passed any order on the application for grant of approval of the building plan, necessary directions be issued to the Licensing Authority.
Thus considered, the Writ Petition is hereby allowed by issuing the Writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 13.9.94 - Annexure G to this Writ Petition, whereby opposite party had cancelled the No Objection Certificate dated 29.12.1992. The No Objection Certificate dated 29.12.1992, shall not be deemed to have stood or to have been cancelled as abated. It is further directed that the opposite party shall within a period 3 months from the date of communication of this direction and order of this Court, consider and, if necessary or required, hear the parties and then, dispose of petitioner's application for approval of building plan and communicate its order to the petitioner under Rules 30 to 32 of Rules. Petition is thus hereby allowed. Costs of the Petition to be borne by the parties.