2015 (9) TMI 27 - HC - Indian Laws

Validity of Punjab Government notification dated 16th November, 2012 - Provision relating to marriage palaces - Held that - The concessional CLU charges and licence/permission fee are payable in single instalment while the EDC charges for a hotel can be paid in two equal six-monthly instalments within a year as prescribed in Clause-4 of the notification. It may be mentioned here that Hotel has been indisputably categorized as an Industry . - there is a vast difference between a hotel and a marriage palace with respect to the nature of construction, total covered area, requisite facilities for the visitors, nature and standards of utilities and multiple usages. There can be thus no comparison between the two incomparable entities. Since the marriage palaces and hotels do not constitute one and the same homogeneous class, the prescription of different rates of statutory charges/fee for them cannot be held to be discriminatory. Such a differentiation falls within the four corners of reasonable classification . CLU and EDC charges have been prescribed after due deliberations and keeping in view the relevant factors like the Collector rates, the value of land and its potentiality etc. These charges have been increased wherever the proportionately higher FAR has been allowed. Secondly, the record produced before us does indicate that the relevant information was called for and the rates were recommended on the basis of a uniform criteria which were finally approved by the Council of Ministers. - The grievance of the petitioners with regard to the alleged excessive rates of EDC/CLU etc. has thus been partially redressed in some of the zones. Sixthly, the remedy against the rates of development charges, if any, lies by way of an appeal under Section 142(1) of the 1995 Act. (17) We may also at this stage deal with the petitioners contention that Development Charges have been levied without any assessment by the Arbitrator as contemplated under Section 139 of the 1995 Act. We may also refer to the first proviso to sub-Section (2)(b) of Section 139 to meet with the petitioners contention that levy of EDC at different rates for different zones is impermissible. The aforesaid provision explicitly enables prescription of different rates of development charges for different parts of the planning area. Subject policy is purposefully retroactive so as to give effect and comply with the directions issued by this Court in exercise of PIL jurisdiction. Various vital issues of paramount public importance like, public safety, congestion on roads and parking chaos created by the existing marriage palaces , were the subject-matter of consideration in the cited PIL. - The policy creates a new obligation on the marriage palaces in presenti. Such a restriction though have the effect of relating back to a date prior to the issue of policy notification but for all intents and purposes, it is retroactive only. The past illegalities committed by the petitioners in setting up unauthorized marriage palaces fall within the sweep of the policy and such illegalities can be regularized subject to the petitioners compliance of the conditions prescribed therein. All the marriage palaces are abutting National or State Highways, scheduled roads or local roads. They draw business only because of their connectivity to main roads. In the absence of any facts and figures which the petitioners have not brought on record, it is difficult to know as to how many of these are using water supply from State canals or water supply system. Assuming they don t use either, the ground water is not their personal property. There are innumerable allied burdens also put on the State Exchequer by the activities of marriage palaces like maintenance of law and order, traffic control, monitoring by pollution controlling agencies etc. It is thus totally farce to say that they are being asked to pay hefty charges or fee without any services in lieu thereof. - The petitioners are not required to leave half of their land for parking as they may provide dedicated parking area equivalent to 50% of their gross area may be through the multi-level parking etc. We uphold the notification dated 16th November, 2012 as modified vide subsequent notification 07.01.2013 - Decided against Appellants.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Punjab Government notification dated 16th November, 2012.
2. Whether the impugned policy stands to the touchstone of Equality within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. Whether the rates of various charges and fees levied under the Policy have been prescribed arbitrarily and irrationally.
4. Whether the impugned policy has been given retrospective effect by enforcing it against the existing marriage palaces.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Punjab Government notification dated 16th November, 2012:
The Punjab Marriage Palace and Resorts Association challenged the validity of the Punjab Government notification dated 16th November, 2012, which laid down "Policy Guidelines and Building Norms for Regularisation of existing Marriage Palaces and Setting up of New Marriage Palaces in the State of Punjab." This policy was framed in response to issues raised in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning traffic jams, road accidents, and unauthorized construction of marriage palaces. The court observed that the policy was formulated in public interest to regulate the haphazard growth of marriage palaces and was necessary for public safety and convenience.

2. Whether the impugned policy stands to the touchstone of Equality within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The petitioners contended that the policy discriminated against marriage palaces compared to hotels regarding CLU/EDC charges and license/permission fees. The court noted that hotels and marriage palaces do not constitute a homogeneous class and have different requirements and standards. The court held that the differentiation in charges between hotels and marriage palaces falls within the realm of reasonable classification and is not discriminatory. The policy was found to be within the bounds of Article 14 of the Constitution.

3. Whether the rates of various charges and fees levied under the Policy have been prescribed arbitrarily and irrationally:
The petitioners argued that the rates of charges/fees under the policy were exorbitant and irrational. The court found that the charges were prescribed after due deliberation, considering factors like land value and potentiality. The court also noted that the rates were recommended based on a uniform criterion and approved by the Council of Ministers. The court observed that the rates were partially reduced in some zones and that most marriage palaces had accepted the notified rates and applied for regularization. The court concluded that the rates were not arbitrary or irrational and upheld the policy.

4. Whether the impugned policy has been given retrospective effect by enforcing it against the existing marriage palaces:
The court clarified that the policy is retroactive, not retrospective. It creates a new obligation on existing marriage palaces to comply with the current regulations. The policy aims to regularize past illegalities and ensure compliance with public safety and convenience norms. The court distinguished between retrospective and retroactive laws, noting that the policy does not compel lawfully established marriage palaces to seek regularization or pay higher charges. The court upheld the policy's retroactive application to existing marriage palaces.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the notification dated 16th November, 2012, as modified by the subsequent notification dated 07.01.2013, and dismissed the writ petitions. The court directed the respondents to permit the petitioners to seek regularization of their marriage palaces as per the amended policy within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.