1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE (SB: HON. SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) W.P. No.7538/2009 Dilip Kumar Bhandari S/o Rajendrasingh Bhandari and 3 others. .... Petitioners Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and one Another. .... Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Vijay Assudani, learned counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Jyoti Tiwari, learned G.A. for the respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Whether approved for reporting : ORDER (Passed on 18.8.2011) 1/ Being aggrieved with the order dated 12.3.2009 (Annexure p/4), by which the petitioners' application for extending the validity period of development permission has been rejected, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 2/ In brief, the case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of plot no.A-1/2, B-1/2 and C-1/2 situated at M.G. Road, Indore, on which they intend to construct multi storied building. In pursuance to their application by order dated 13.12.2005, development permission was granted. The permission was to remain valid for 3 years. They could not 2 commence construction within the stipulated period, therefore, they had filed the application dated 21.11.2008 for extension of validity period of the development permission. The respondent no.2 by the impugned order dated 12.3.2009 rejected the application on the ground that in the development plan for the Indore city namely Indore Development Plan 2021, there is proposal for protecting Bhandari Kothi treating it as city heritage. The proposed construction by the petitioners comes within the prohibited area, therefore, permission was declined. 3/ Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the application filed on 21.11.2008 was only for the renewal of the permission already granted, therefore, the position is to be seen as on 13.12.2005 when the original permission was granted and any subsequent change can not be the basis for rejecting the renewal permission. He further submitted that the construction is permissible even in the prohibited area. 4/ Learned counsel appearing for the respondents referring to the provisions of the Section submitted that there is no right vested with the petitioners to get the renewal, therefore, the position existing as on the date of consideration of the renewal application is to be seen. She further submitted that the renewal has rightly been rejected assigning the relevant and cogent reasons. 5/ I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6/ In the order dated 13.12.2005 granting the development permission it was expressly stated that the 3 permission was to remain valid for a period of three years in terms of Section 33 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short “the Act”). Section 33 of the Act in clear terms provides that the permission granted under Section 30 to 32 will remain in force for a period of three years from the date of such grant, and thereafter it shall lapse. The proviso to Section 33 gives power to the Director to extend validity period from year to year but such period in no case should exceed 5 years from the date on which the permission was initially granted. 7/ In the present case, the permission was granted on 13.12.2005, therefore, in terms of Section 33 of the Act and expressed condition in the permission, it lapsed on 12.12.2008 since it was not renewed by the Director prior to 12.12.2008. 8/ The petitioners had filed the application for renewal/ extension of time on 21.11.2008, which was considered and rejected by the Director on 12.3.2009. The petitioners had no vested right to get the renewal or to get the period extended. It is the settled position in law that in a case where there is no vested right in favour of an applicant, then the position existing on the date of the consideration of the application is to be seen. (Please see: Bank of Maharashtra and another Vs. Manoj Kumar Deharia and another [2010(4) MPHT 18] and Sunita Sharma (Smt.) Vs. Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank [2010(2) JLJ 201). 9/ It has also been pointed out that the Indore Development Plan 2021 has been finally approved by the State and has been implemented from 1.1.2008, therefore, in the 4 present case when the application for renewal/extension of time was considered by the Joint Director, at that time the Indore Development Plan 2021 had come and the Bhandari Kothi was declared as city heritage, therefore, the permission has rightly been refused since the area in question is falling within the prohibited area. 10/ Under the proviso to Section 33 a discretion has been given to the Director to extend the original period of three years from year to year for a further period of 2 years. The Commissioner has exercised the discretion in a reasonable manner and has rejected the application by assigning cogent reasons. 11/ It is also worth noting that the petitioners has not started construction in pursuance to the original permission granted on 13.12.2005 and even the maximum period of 5 year in terms of proviso to Section 33, has come to an end on 12.12.2010. 12/ Thus the impugned order dated 12.3.2009 does not suffer from any error. The writ petition is devoid of substance and is accordingly dismissed. (PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) J u d g e Trilok.