LPA No.260/2003 Page 1 of 4 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + LPA No. 260 of 2003 Judgment reserved on: April 20, 2010 % Judgment delivered on: May 05, 2010 Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through its Commissioner Town Hall Chandni Chowk Delhi. …Appellant Through: Ms.Maninder Acharya with Ms.Apurna Kothari & Ms.Mansi Gupta, Advs. Versus M/s. B&G Café Pvt. Ltd. A-574, Lado Sarai New Delhi-110030. …Respondent Through: Mr. N.S. Vasisht, Adv. Coram: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Not necessary LPA No.260/2003 Page 2 of 4 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Not necessary MADAN B. LOKUR, ACJ The Appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 4th February, 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W. No. 5783/2000. 2. At the outset it may be stated that the learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that the issue raised in the writ petition is fully covered by his judgment and order in M/s. Holistic Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. MCD and others, 2003 (1) AD (Del) 491. That judgment was subsequently appealed against by the Municipal Corporation in LPA No. 268/2003. We have today allowed the appeal of the Municipal Corporation and have held that the building bye-laws as on the date of consideration/sanction of the building plans is crucial. We have rejected the view that the date of submission of the application for sanctioning the building plans is relevant. 3. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the Respondent had applied for the sanction of its building plan on 1st May, 2000. Thereafter, on 15th May, 2000 the Respondent was informed that there LPA No.260/2003 Page 3 of 4 are certain deficiencies in the application. By the time the deficiencies were removed, the building bye-laws underwent a change on 7th June, 2000. The effect of this has been discussed by us in LPA No. 268/2003. 4. In view of the change in the building bye-laws, the application filed by the Respondent was rejected on 12th July, 2000. This rejection was challenged by the Respondent by filing a writ petition, which was allowed by the impugned order. 5. We find from the material on record that the building plans were rejected because they did not conform to the building bye-laws as on the date of consideration and also because some of the deficiencies pointed out on 15th May, 2000 were not removed. 6. We have held in Holistic Farms that if the application for sanction of building plans is not in accordance with the building bye- laws, it is liable to be rejected. In this appeal, since the application for sanction was not in accordance with the building bye-laws, it was rightly rejected by the Municipal Corporation. LPA No.260/2003 Page 4 of 4 7. Following our decision in LPA No. 268/2003, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 4th February, 2003 in CWP No. 5783/2000 is set aside. No costs. (MADAN B. LOKUR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MAY 05, 2010 (MUKTA GUPTA) kapil JUDGE Certified that the corrected copy of the judgment has been transmitted to the main Server.