Violation of building bylaws: Going against HC order, Chandigarh reduces misuse charges

UT Finance Secretary Sarvjit Singh on Monday issued a notification regarding reduction of misuse charges while exercising the powers conferred by Section 3 (power of central government in respect of transfer of land and building in Chandigarh) and 22 (Power to make rules) of the Act.

In 2007, the administration had increased misuse charges from Rs 10 per square feet to Rs 500 per square feet with the enforcement of the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007.

The full bench of Justice Surya Kant, Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice RP Nagrath in a case Dheera Singh vs Chandigarh administration on November 8, 2012 had stated: “The principles governing the powers of delegated legislation are fairly settled. Such a power is exercisable to implement and achieve the objects of a Statute within the framework of the legislative policy; every delegate is subject to the authority and control of the principal who can always direct, correct or cancel the action of the subordinate legislation; the delegate in the garb of making rules cannot legislate on the fields covered by the Act.”

The bench had further maintained: “If one looks into sub-Section (2) of Section 22 within the framework of the settled principles, there should be no difficulty in understanding that the power to determine the nature and extent of penalties for varied violations under the Act was neither intended nor was delegated by the Legislature to the Executive. Had it been so, no occasion could arise for the Legislature to fix the amount of lumpsum or day-to-day penalty as has been done by it through Sections 8, 13, 15 or to maximise the limit of forfeiture in Section 8-A of the 1952 Act.”

“The Executive failed to live-up to the expectations of the residents as instead of approaching the Ministry concerned with a concrete proposal on data-based information for onward consideration of the Legislature to rejuvenate the 1952 Act and make it more vibrant and alive to the issues in praesentia or in future, it has gone for ad hoc solutions taking refuge under Section 22 of the Act.” read the judgment.

The administration was directed to take steps necessary for upgradation of the 1952 Act.

Opinions from legal remembrancer (LR) of administration on May 29, 2013, observed that it should not ignore HC’s directions and advised it to regulate its course of actions strictly as per directions.

Advocates SK Jain and Vikas Jain said that the administration cannot impose penalty in garb of rules. UT Finance Secretary said that they had sent the Act to the government for amendment.