- (1.) This order shall dispose of aforementioned three applications, whereby the applicant-petitioner(s) have sought review of the judgment passed by this Court on 06.02.2012 on the following grounds: (i) That the petitioner has challenged legality and validity of Rule 9 & 9(A) of the Chandigarh Sale of (Site & Building) Rules, 1960 and Rule 17 of Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 but in the order, it has been mentioned that there is no challenge to such Rules. It is submitted that such Rules give unguided & unbriddled power without any legislative control of the minimum and maximum limits of fee chargeable in exercise of powers conferred under Section 22 (2) (c) & (f) of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. (ii) That the penalty imposed is ultra vires of Section 13 of the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, 1952 and Sections 347 & 388 and Schedule III of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (as extended to Chandigarh). (iii) That the extension fee claimed from the petitioner is dehors the Rules and, thus, not sustainable. (iv) That this Court has not examined the levy of conversion charges in respect of first and second floors of the sites in question and that the conversion charges are discriminatory, as different rates are prescribed for the buildings located within the lal dora than the buildings located outside the lal dora, such as the property of the petitioner.
(2.) We do not find any merit in any of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner except to correct inadvertant mistake at page 17 of the order. In fact, the present order be read in continuation of earlier order passed by this Court on 06.02.2012.
(3.) The argument that Rule 9 & 9(A) of the Chandigarh Sale of (Site & Building) Rules, 1960 and Rule 17 of Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 have been challenged, but it has been wrongly recorded in the order dated 06.02.2012 that there is no challenge to such Rules. We find that such fact recorded therein is on account of inadvertant mistake. Therefore, the words "...We may record that there is no challenge to the framing of Rule 9 restricting the use of a building in a particular manner or Section 4 of the Act, empowering the Chief Administrator to issue directions in respect of use of the site..." appearing at page No.17 of the order requires to be deleted. Ordered accordingly.;