2009 (2) TMI 812 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the matter providing for collection of IDC is a matter of procedure and not a substantive provision? Whether the State of Tamil Nadu is correctly directed to file an affidavit before the High Court to justify the levy of fee?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of Infrastructure Development Charges (IDC) collection by Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA).
2. Delegation of power to CMDA by the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (Sewerage Board).
3. Application of the doctrine of quid pro quo in the imposition of IDC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of IDC Collection by CMDA:
The primary issue was the legality and/or validity of IDC collected by CMDA allegedly on behalf of the Sewerage Board for issuing planning permission for multi-storeyed and special buildings. The appellants, builders, and developers contended that CMDA had no power to collect IDC and that the Sewerage Board was obligated to supply water and provide sewerage connections without such charges. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the IDC collection.

2. Delegation of Power to CMDA:
The appellants argued that the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978 (the 1978 Act) contained no provision for delegating power to an outsider, making the demand by CMDA illegal. The respondents contended that the Sewerage Board, bound by the State of Tamil Nadu's directions, could delegate IDC computation and collection to CMDA for convenience.

The Supreme Court noted that the Sewerage Board is a statutory body and can delegate its power only if the principal Act provides for it. The Court found that the High Court had incorrectly focused on whether CMDA was acting as an agent rather than whether the Sewerage Board could legally delegate its power to CMDA. However, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that Regulation 4, made under Section 81(2)(jj) of the 1978 Act, authorized CMDA to collect IDC, making it a procedural rather than a substantive delegation of power.

3. Application of Quid Pro Quo:
The appellants contended that no special services were rendered to justify IDC, failing the doctrine of quid pro quo. The Court observed that the State or the Sewerage Board did not clarify the basis for the IDC rate of Rs. 64/- per square meter. The principle of quid pro quo requires a fair correspondence between the fee collected and the services rendered. The Court cited precedents emphasizing that a fee must be proportional to the services provided and not merely a means to generate general revenue.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not address the issue of quid pro quo properly, failing to inquire whether the IDC was justified by the services rendered. The Court noted that no material was presented to justify the IDC rate, leading to the conclusion that the matter required further examination.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The State of Tamil Nadu was directed to be impleaded as a party and to file an affidavit justifying the IDC levy within four weeks. The High Court was requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously.