9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lved are common in nature. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.25601 of 2012. (2) The Punjab Marriage Palace and Resorts Association as well as some of the other Marriage Palaces and Resorts have questioned the validity of Punjab Government notification dated 16th November, 2012 founded upon the decision taken by the Council of Ministers whereby Policy Guidelines and Building Norms for Regularisation of existing Marriage Palaces and Setting up of New Marriage Palaces in the State of Punjab , have been laid down. (3) Firstly, a brief reference to the genesis of the Policy, under challenge, may be made. In a Public Interest Litigation bearing CWP No.21547 of 2011 (Jagjit Singh vs. State of Punjab Ors.), issues relating to (i) the unending traffic jams due to unauthorized parking of hundreds of vehicles on the roadside in front of Marriage Palaces, (ii) road-accidents caused due to chaotic conditions and unauthorized construction of Marriage Palaces/Resorts in violation of provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (in short, the 1963 Act ) or the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Deve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the vehicles within its boundary or alternate parking space and an undertaking be got from the owners of all the marriage palaces that at the time of any function therein, no vehicle shall be parked on the land earmarked for road and for station next to the road. (Emphasis applied) (6) It was in this backdrop and for regulating the haphazard growth of marriage palaces that a draft Policy was framed and pursuant thereto, the marriage palaces were given an option of seeking regularization of their respective constructions. It was noticed by this Court on 4th September, 2012 that 86 marriage palaces had applied for the regularization of their buildings after complying with the proposed norms. The authorities were accordingly permitted to scrutinize the case of those marriage palaces. (7) The draft Policy was thereafter notified formulating the Building Norms for Regularization of the existing Marriage Palaces and for setting up of new Marriage Palaces in the State of Punjab . The Policy, inter alia, prescribes (i) Permissible Zones for Marriage Palaces; (ii) Building Norms including at least 100 mtrs. distance from the site of a school, college or hospital and the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if a marriage palace is spread over 10 acres of land, 5 acres goes for earmarked parking only. As against it, if the total area of the marriage palace is 3 acres or so, only 1 acres would be needed for parking. Lack of rationality is thus attributed to the impugned policy; (vii) External Development Charges (EDC) are leviable in accordance with Sections 139 to 142 of the 1995 Act at the rate to be assessed by the Arbitrator and on quid pro quo basis, namely, in lieu of amenities like the roads, sewerage, drainage, water and electricity etc. In the case of marriage palaces which are mostly located outside the Municipal limits, no such amenities are provided by the Local Administration. Moreover, EDC has been levied without its assessment by the Arbitrator; (viii) The prescription of different rates of charges/fee for different zones under the impugned Policy has no intelligible classification, for a marriage palace in a village like Mullanpur (in close vicinity of Chandigarh) is required to pay higher charges than those prescribed for a marriage palace located within the Municipal limits of Ludhiana; (ix) The impugned Policy is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervention by this Court in exercise of its public interest jurisdiction. The necessity to regulate the existing or new marriage palaces was the need of the hour. The directions issued by this Court from time to time some of which are referred to in paras 3 to 6 of this order compelled the stakeholders to address the issue. The formation of the subject-Policy is thus indeed in public interest and save it does not suffer from the vice of discrimination or arbitrariness or is not found in conflict with any statutory provision, this Court would be extremely reluctant to interfere with it. (12) The petitioners have mounted three-fold attack on the subject policy. The following three issues thus raised by them need to be addressed:- (i) Whether the impugned policy does not stand to the touchstone of Equality within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution? (ii) Whether the rates of various charges and fee levied under the Policy have been prescribed arbitrarily and irrationally? (iii) Whether the impugned policy has been given retrospective effect by enforcing against the existing marriage palaces also? Whether the impugned policy does not stand to the touchstone of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fferent rates of statutory charges/fee for them cannot be held to be discriminatory. Such a differentiation falls within the four corners of reasonable classification . Whether the rates of various charges and fee levied under the Policy have been prescribed arbitrarily and irrationally? (16) The petitioners in this regard have made two-fold complaint. Firstly, it was urged that the rates of charges/fee prescribed under the impugned Policy are highly exorbitant and if not rationalized, most of the marriage palaces would crumble under their weight. Secondly, the differentiation in rates from one zone to another is also irrational, unguided and per se arbitrary. Having pondered over both the submissions, we do not find any substance therein. We say so for the reason that firstly the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charge shall be levied on institution, or change of, use of any land or building vested in or under the control or in possession of, the Central Government or the State Government. (3) The rates of development charge leviable shall be assessed by the Arbitrator on a reference having been made in this behalf to the Arbitrator by the Authority. (18) Sub-Section (1) of Section 139 thus empowers the Authority to notify and levy development charges with the previous sanction of State Government which has been admittedly accorded in the instant case. Sub-Section (3) relied upon by the petitioners is a legislative safeguard against arbitrary fixation of development charges which are to be assessed by an Arbitrator on a reference made by the Authority (and not by the subject of such charges). Sub-Section (3) is inapplicable where charges so levied fall within the limit of sub-Section (2) of Section 139 of the 1995 Act. (19) 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eservation in relation to a Scheduled road Scheduled Road are defined under Section 2(3),(5),(9) (10) of the 1963 Act. Section 3 of the 1963 Act, in no uncertain terms, prohibits erection or re-erection of any building within 100 mtrs. on either side of a road reservation of bypass or within 30 mtrs. on either side of road reservation of any scheduled road not being bypass except those saved under its proviso. Section 4 of the Act empowers the State Government to notify the controlled area and if so notified, Section 6 of the Act prohibits erection or re-erection of any building in the controlled area also. The facts and figure produced before this Court in the PIL jurisdiction reveal that in Patiala district alone there were 92 marriage palaces situated outside the municipal limits (where the 1963 Act applies) and only 10 of them had obtained No Objection Certificates. Large scale marriage palaces were thus constructed abutting the roads regulated under the 1963 Act without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority. (23) The 1963 Act has been repealed by virtue of Section 183(1)(i) of the 1995 Act. However, Section 143 of the 1995 Act also prohibits erectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Acts came into force, as the case may be, thus have been rightly categorized as unauthorized and unlawful constructions for want of requisite permissions from the prescribed authorities under the Act(s). (27) The petitioners contention that development charges or various fees are not leviable as no amenities are provided to them on quid pro quo basis, is devoid of any substance and merits outright rejection. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easonable restrictions . (31) It is by now well settled in a catena of decisions that the Courts should not generally interfere with the policy decisions so long as it does not infringe the fundamental rights or transgresses statutory powers. The guiding principles laid down from time to time have been briefly summed up in a recent decision in Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 502, illustrating that court s interference in the policy decisions of the State may be justified (I) If the policy fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. (II) The change in policy must be made fairly and should not give an impression that it was so done arbitrarily with any ulterior intention. (III) The policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. (IV) If the policy is found to be against any statute or the Constitution or runs counter to the philosophy behind these provisions. (V) It is dehors the provisions of the Act or Legislations. (VI) If the delegate has acted beyond its power of delegation. (32) The petitioner-Marriage Palace, in CWP No.25433 of 2012, has made an additional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
