Judgment:
ORDER
S.K. Kulshrestha, J.
1. Shri A.K. Sethi, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Counsel for the appellant.
2. Heard on admission.
This appeal assails the order dated 12-9-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5167/2007 by which the Writ Petition of the petitioner has been summarily dismissed on the ground that it was not preceded by a notice of demand, to the respondents. Learned Senior Counsel submits that under the provisions of Section 30(5) of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (Adhiniyam for short), if the Director does not communicate his decision to the applicant within sixty days from the date of the receipt of his application, such permission shall be deemed to have been granted to the applicant on the date immediately following the date of expiry of sixty days. Learned Senior Counsel urges that since it is necessary to append a copy of the sanction under Section 30 of the Adhiniyam, unless an order is passed to the effect that on account of the passage of the statutory period, a deemed permission has accrued in favour of the applicant, the plans cannot be submitted to the Municipal Corporation for sanction of the detailed plan. Section 30 of the Adhiniyam reads as under:
30. Grant or refusal of permission.--(1) On receipt of an application under Section 29 the Director may, subject to the provisions of this Act, by order in writing-
(a) grant the permission unconditionally;
(b) grant the permission, subject to such conditions as may, be deemed necessary under the circumstances;
(c) refuse the permission.
(2) Every order granting permission subject to conditions, or refusing permission shall state the grounds for imposing such conditions or for such refusal.
(3) Any permission granted under Sub-section (2) with or without conditions shall be in such manner as may be prescribed.
(4) Every order under Sub-section (2) shall be communicated to the applicant in such manner as may be prescribed.
(5) If the Director does not communicate his decision whether to grant or refuse permission to the applicant with (sixty days) from the date of receipt of his application, such permission shall be deemed to have been granted to the applicant on the date immediately following the date of expiry of (sixty days):
Provided that in computing the period of (sixty days) the period in between the date of requisitioning any further information or documents from the applicant and date of receipt of such information or documents from the applicant shall be excluded.
3. From a perusal of the Section it is clear that it is on account of the default attributable to the Director that by fiction there is a deeming provision about the sanction of the plan. Under these circumstances, the said provision does not contemplate any certificate being given to the applicant for the in-action on the part of the Director of the Town and Country Planning Department, in not considering the question of grant or refusal of the application for development. We are, therefore, unable to find the requirement of issuing a certificate in this behalf in Sub-section (5) of Section 30 or otherwise.
4. In the above view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.