HOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPN. AND ORS. versus GANGES ROPE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 1212 · Decided: 19-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPN. AND ORS. 
v. 
GANGES ROPE CO. LTD. AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 19, 2003 
B 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Building Laws : 
Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980-Sections 17 5 and 215-
C Howrah Municipal CorporatiOn Building Rules, 1991-Sections 3, 4 and 
20-Construction of multi-storied buildings-Sanction for construction 
upto 7th floor-Grant of-Corporation not granting sanction within the 
prescribed period and also within four weeks period granted by Court 
which was further extended-High Court directing Corporation to grant 
sanction upto 4th .floor and permitting Company to apply for further 
D sanction beyond 4th floor if permissible-Grant of sanction upto 4th 
floor-Application for sanction for construction. of additional jloors-
Rejection by Corporation, High Court expressing expectation for decision 
on pending application with plan within four weeks-Subsequent amendment 
to Building Rules and resolution of Corporation putting restriction on 
E height of high rising building on GT road-Company claiming creation of 
vested right to seek sanction irrespective of the amendment-Single Judge 
of High Court rejecting Company's prayer in public interest, however 
Division Bench directing grant of sanction for construction above 4th 
floor-Held : Such 'settled expectation ' cannot create any vested right to 
F obtain sanction-Claim based on alleged 'vested right' or 'settled 
expectation' cannot be set up against statvtory provisions brought into 
force by State Government by amending building rules and not by 
Corporation against whom such vested right or settled expectation is being 
enforced-Further, such settled expectation or vested right cannot be 
countenanced against public interest and convenience sought to be served 
G by amendment and resolution-Hence, order of Single Judge of High Court 
restored and that of Division Bench quashed 
Respondent-company applied for sanction for constructi~n of 
multi-storied building· upto seven floors. Appellant-Corporation did 
H not grant sanction within the prescribed period and also within four 
1212 
'f ' 
HOWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPN. v. GANGES ROPE CO. LTD. 
1213 
weeks period granted by the Court which was further extended. High A 
Court then directed the Corporation to grant sanction upto 4th floor 
level a_nd also permitted the Company to apply for further sanction 
beyond 4th floor if permissible. Corporation granted sanction and 
construction was completed upto 4th floor. Respondent then applied 
for sanction for three additional floors with separate building plans B 
which was rejected. Single Judge of High Court held that as the right 
of the company was reserved to apply for sanction for further floors, 
Corporation was bound to accept the construction plan and directed 
the Corporation to pass appropriate orders within four weeks. Re-
spondent again approached the Corporation and as directed submitted C 
the required papers and documents. While the matter was pending for 
sanction for construction before the Corporation, State amended the 
Howrah Municipal Corporation Building Rules, 1991 restricting height 
of the buildings; consequent thereto Corporation passed a resolution 
restriction height of the building on GT Road and the Corporation 
refused to grant the permission. Single Judge of High Court held that D 
the sanction for additional three floors cannot be granted as the 
Building Rules have been amended and the resolution of the Corporation 
restricts height of the building on GT Road. However, Division Bench 
of High Court granted sanction for construction of three additional 
floors. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Appellant-Corporation contended that order of the Court direct-
ing sanction within a specified pek'iod, did not create a vested right in 
favour of the company to seek sanction for construction of additional 
three floors, that the Division Bench of High Court erred in holding 
that the unamended rules and regulations in force on the date of F 
submission of the application seeking sanction for further construction, 
would govern the matter of sanction and the subsequent amendment 
cannot take away the alleged vested right for seeking sanction by the 
company; that in view of the amendment to the Building Rules and the 
consequent resolution taken by the Corporation restricting height of G 
buildings on GT Road, Corporation had to refuse the sanction for 
construction of three additional floors and this c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.