9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Act under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. 2. Violation of Article 14 due to failure to recognize material differences between buildings. 3. Arbitrariness of exemptions provided by Section 28 under Article 14. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Act under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution: The petitioners contended that the imposition of a cess on residential buildings in good condition, which would not require structural repairs for the entire period of the Act, amounted to an unreasonable restriction, thereby violating Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The respondents argued that the imposition of the tax was within the power under Article 246(3) read with Entry 49 in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and was for a public purpose, thus not constituting an unreasonable restriction. The Court examined the background in which the Act was passed, noting the acute shortage of housing and the dangerous conditions of many buildings in Bombay. The Court held that the cess was for a public purpose aimed at preventing collapses and ensuring the safety of residents, and thus did not violate Article 19(1)(f). 2. Violation of Article 14 due to failure to recognize material differences between buildings: The petitioners argued that the Act treated unequals as equals by failing to recognize the material differences between various buildings with regard to their physical conditions, thereby violating Article 14. They contended that the tax equated buildings in dangerous and dilapidated conditions with those in good and sound condition. The respondents countered that there was an intelligible classification of buildings based on their age and type of construction, which had a rational nexus with the objects of the Act. The Court upheld the classification, stating that it was based on intelligible differentia and related to the objectives of the legislation. The Court noted that the classification of buildings into three categories was made in light of surveys and reports, and was not arbitrary or whimsical. 3. Arbitrariness of exemptions provided by Section 28 under Article 14: The petitioners challenged the exemptions provided by Section 28 as arbitrary and without any principle, thus violating Article 14. They argued that some exemptions had no foundation in principle and were irrational. The respondents maintained that the exemptions were provided in light of the objects and scope of the Act and were in consonance with them. The Court found that the exemptions were based on reasonable classifications. For instance, buildings used for non-residential purposes, buildings occupied by owners, and buildings occupied on leave and license formed distinct classes by themselves and could not be equated with tenanted residential buildings. The Court held that the exemptions were valid and did not violate Article 14. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, 1969, dismissing the petitions. The Court found that the cess imposed by the Act was for a public purpose, the classification of buildings was based on intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objects of the Act, and the exemptions provided were reasonable and did not violate the equal protection clause under Article 14. The petitions were dismissed without any order of costs.
|
