SUBASH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF J&K
LAWS(J&K)-1999-3-38
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on March 23,1999

SUBASH CHANDER Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE Government of Jammu and Kashmir in the department of Housing and Urban Development, issued a notification on 17th Aug., 93. This notification was issued in terms of Section 229 (4) of the J&K Municipal Act of Svt. 2008. The publication of this notification led to the amendments being made in Rule 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Unauthorised construction Rules, 1977. This R.5 prescribes the rates which the Municipality can accept by way of composition fee. The existing and revised rates are being reproduced below: Existing Amended Rs. 1.25 Rs. 12.50 Rs. 2.50 Rs. 25.60 Rs. 5.00 Rs. 50.00 Rs. 0.50 Rs. 5.00 Rs. 10.00 Rs. 100.00 Rs. 3.00 Rs. 30.00 Rs. 2.00 Rs. 20.00
(2.) IN persuance of the notification so issued the case of the petitioners has been dealt with by the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal. An order has been passed whereby a direction has been given that the Municipality can compound the violation by charging composition fee as per the amended rules. It is basically this decision of the Tribunal which is subject matter of challenge in this petition and other petitions shown in the schedule appended to this order. All the petitions enumerated in the schedule shall be taken to have been admitted. With the consent of the parties, these are being taken up for final disposal.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submit that SRO 149/93 referred to above has not been given retrospective effect. It is accordingly urged that this SRO would not apply to the constructions which have been raised before the aforementioned SRO came into force. Any construction raised before 17th Aug. 93, is supposed to be dealt with as per the rules which were in existence before 17th Aug. 93. Such is the broad argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners. With a view to support these arguments, it is urged that whenever the legislature wants to have a legislative enactment, then unless and until retrospective effect is expressly given, the statutory amendment would have prospective effect. In addition to the above argument, it is urged that this aspect of the matter was taken note of by the State Government on 15th Dec., 93. A draft notification was issued. Objections were invited. The objections were invited to the effect as to whether the provisions of notification dated 17th Aug. 93 should be made applicable to the cases which are pending before.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.