2002 (5) TMI 875 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of MCD, DDA, and NDMC to seal premises in case of misuse.
2. Interpretation of relevant statutory provisions, specifically Sections 343, 344, and 345A of the DMC Act and Sections 30, 31, and 31A of the DDA Act.
3. The extent of power conferred by Section 345A of the DMC Act and Section 31A of the DDA Act.
4. The application of penal provisions in cases of misuse of premises.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of MCD, DDA, and NDMC to Seal Premises in Case of Misuse:
The primary issue is whether the MCD, DDA, and NDMC have the jurisdiction to seal premises in case of misuse. The court noted that the Division Bench in Rohit Talwar v. MCD had previously held that municipal authorities do not have such power. The judgment emphasized that despite amendments in the DMC Act, no changes were made to Sections 343, 344, and 345A, indicating that the interpretation of these provisions was accepted by the respondents.

2. Interpretation of Relevant Statutory Provisions:
The court examined the statutory provisions of the DMC Act and the DDA Act in detail. Section 345A of the DMC Act and Section 31A of the DDA Act were scrutinized to determine if they conferred the power to seal premises in cases of misuse. The court highlighted that these sections are primarily concerned with unauthorized constructions and developments, not misuse of premises.

3. Extent of Power Conferred by Section 345A of the DMC Act and Section 31A of the DDA Act:
The court concluded that the power to seal premises under Section 345A of the DMC Act and Section 31A of the DDA Act is limited to cases of unauthorized constructions and developments. The judgment stated, "The power to direct sealing of a building or premises conferred upon the Commissioner, in terms of Section 345A of the DMC Act would, thus, not only extend to the cases of unauthorized constructions but also to cases where the premises are being misused by the occupants."

4. Application of Penal Provisions in Cases of Misuse of Premises:
The court observed that misuse of premises is addressed under Section 347 of the DMC Act and Section 14 of the DDA Act, which provide for penal actions. The judgment emphasized that penal provisions for misuse do not extend to sealing of premises. It stated, "In a case relating to misuse of the premises an order of demolition cannot be passed although penal provisions can be taken recourse to."

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Commissioner does not have the power to seal premises for misuse under Section 345A of the DMC Act and Section 31A of the DDA Act. The judgment highlighted that such powers must be explicitly conferred by statute and cannot be inferred. The court stated, "For the reasons afore-mentioned, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner cannot exercise its power of sealing of property for mis-user of the premises under Section 345A of the DMC Act and Section 31A of the DDA Act."

The appeals and writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.