ABHIMANYU RATHOR Vs. STATE OF H.P. & OTHERS
LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-212
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on
December 22,2017
Abhimanyu Rathor
Appellant
VERSUS
State Of H.P. And Others
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
JYOTI PERSHAD V. UT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]BUDHAN CHOUDHRY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA DALMIA SHRIYANS PRASAD JAIN JAI DAYAL DALMIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
C I EMDEN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KANGSHARI HALDAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. VITHAL RAO [REFERRED TO]
E P ROYAPPA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. AMBICA MILLS LTD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. N M THOMAS [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI SHRI RAJ NARAIN VS. RAJ NARAIN INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT OF INDIA VS. SPECIAL COURTS BILL 1978 [REFERRED TO]
R K GARG R K KARANJIA MADHU MEHTA P K SOI S S BEDI VS. UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS BOMBAY PRIVATE LIMITED BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LIMITED STATESMAN LIMITED KASTURI AND SONS LIMITED ANANDA BAZAR PATRIKA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. D T C MAZDOOR CONGRESS ANB [REFERRED TO]
PRATIBHA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KIHOTO HOLLOHAN VS. ZACHILLHU [REFERRED TO]
K R LAKSHMANAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. MCDOWELL AND CO [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. BIHAR DISTILLERY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
M I BUILDERS PVT LIMITED VS. RADHEY SHYAM SAHU [REFERRED TO]
CONSUMER ACTION GROUP VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
PADMA VS. HIRALAL MOTILAL DESARDA [REFERRED TO]
BAKHTAWAR TRUST VS. M D NARAYAN [REFERRED TO]
GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE VS. C K RAJAN [REFERRED TO]
HAWRAH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. GANGES ROPE COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
FRIENDS COLONY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MIRZAPUR MOTI KURESHI KASSAB JAMAT [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION ORISS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
M C MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ROYAL PARASDISE HOTEL P LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
I R COELHO VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN INDORE VIKAS PRADHIKARAN VS. PURE INDUSTRIAL COCK AND CHEM LTD [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. PREM LATA SOOD [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA BANK LTD VS. STATE OF A P [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. P LAXMI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR FINANCE SERVICE VS. GAUTAM GOSWAMI [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI SPORTS CLUB VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PRIYANKA ESTATE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
FULJIT KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR JOSHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. RAKESH KOHLI [REFERRED TO]
DIPAK KUMAR MUKHERJEE VS. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
ESHA EKTA APARTMENTS CO-OPERATIVE VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
SURESH KUMAR KOUSHAL VS. NAZ FOUNDATION [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
SUPREME COURT ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAJBALA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SAYYED RATANBHAI SAYEED (D) TH. LRS. & ORS. VS. SHIRDI NAGAR PANCHAYAT & ANR. [REFERRED TO]
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
BINOY VISWAM VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SHAYARA BANO VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
SANJAY KAROL,A.C.J. -
(1.)The questions, which arise for consideration in these petitions, are:
i). As to whether insertion of Section 30-B, by virtue of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2016, in the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, is contrary to the object and purpose of the said Principal Act, as also ultra vires the Constitution of India?
ii). As to whether the constitutional validity of the amending provision is not ultra vires the Constitution, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Consumer Action Group v. State of T.N., (2000) 7 SCC 425 ?
iii). As to whether arbitrariness cannot be a ground for holding the amendment to be ultra vires the Constitution, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Binoy Viswam v. Union of India and others, (2017) 7 SCC 59 ?
iv). If not, then as to whether the amendment is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, being arbitrary, irrational, illogical, capricious and unreasonable, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shayra Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1 ?
v). If the amendment is ultra vires, then as to whether it can be saved by adopting the doctrine of severability or not?
(2.)The impugned amendment carried out in the Statute, which starts with a non obstante Clause, confers power upon the Government, empowered Officer or Authority to exempt development of any land or building or class of lands or buildings developed on or before 15.6.2016, from all or any of the provisions of the Act, save and except certain exceptions, on payment of specified regularization fee.
(3.)Moot issue, as already mentioned, is as to whether it is within the legislative competence of the State to come out with such an amendment and whether the said amendment is violative of the Constitution of India, Part-III or otherwise, as also being inconsistent with the object of the Principal Act.
i). As to whether insertion of Section 30-B, by virtue of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2016, in the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, is contrary to the object and purpose of the said Principal Act, as also ultra vires the Constitution of India?
ii). As to whether the constitutional validity of the amending provision is not ultra vires the Constitution, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Consumer Action Group v. State of T.N., (2000) 7 SCC 425 ?
iii). As to whether arbitrariness cannot be a ground for holding the amendment to be ultra vires the Constitution, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Binoy Viswam v. Union of India and others, (2017) 7 SCC 59 ?
iv). If not, then as to whether the amendment is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, being arbitrary, irrational, illogical, capricious and unreasonable, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shayra Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1 ?
v). If the amendment is ultra vires, then as to whether it can be saved by adopting the doctrine of severability or not?
(2.)The impugned amendment carried out in the Statute, which starts with a non obstante Clause, confers power upon the Government, empowered Officer or Authority to exempt development of any land or building or class of lands or buildings developed on or before 15.6.2016, from all or any of the provisions of the Act, save and except certain exceptions, on payment of specified regularization fee.
(3.)Moot issue, as already mentioned, is as to whether it is within the legislative competence of the State to come out with such an amendment and whether the said amendment is violative of the Constitution of India, Part-III or otherwise, as also being inconsistent with the object of the Principal Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.