RAMENDRA JAIN, J. - (1.) The petitioner, a registered association formed by the owners of flats purchased by them in a multi storeyed building, in the Group Housing Project, namely, 'Vedanta', developed by M/s Raheja Developers Limited (respondent no.12), in Sector 108 Gurgaon, has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to declare that the occupation certificate, dated 17.11.2014 (Annexure P-19), issued by the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh (respondent no.2) in favour of M/s Raheja Developers Limited, is illegal, and in contravention to the settled legal position of law. The petitioner-association has further prayed that 'No objection Certificates dated 21.5.2014 (Annexure P-18) as also, dated 15.9.2015 (Annexure P-27) granted by the Director, Fire Service Station, Panchkula and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon, respectively, may be declared as null and void, inasmuch as the instructions laid down therein, have not been complied with by M/s Raheja Developers Limited (respondent no.12) in letter and spirit. A Prayer for writ of mandamus has also been made for directing the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh (respondent no.2), to withdraw the occupation certificate, dated 17.11.2014 (Annexure P-19) and also for initiating appropriate action against respondent nos. 12 to 20 (Director and functionaries of the Company), inasmuch as they had violated the various provisions laid down in the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Area Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (as applicable to Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheduled Road Act 1963") and to further direct respondent no.12 not to violate the terms and conditions of the licence as also the various provisions of the National Building Code.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-association has assiduously argued that the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh, has issued the occupation certificate, dated 17.11.2014 (Annexure P-19), to M/s Raheja Developers Limited (respondent no.12) without considering the fact that it has not complied with all the stipulations as enumerated in clause 9 of the Occupation certificate and, therefore, the occupation certificate is required to be withdrawn. It is further submitted that before necessary permission for the development and construction of the building is granted to the promoter/builder, the State and its functionaries are to ensure that there are no violations of the provisions of the rules and regulations on the part of the builder so that there may not be any impediment of any kind at a later stage, when the possession of the building is being handed over to the management of the Society. Learned counsel for the petitioner-association has further pointed out that in order to raise construction at the site, a developer/promoter is required to obtain a licence under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1975 Act") and also under the Scheduled Road Act, 1963, as the land falls within an area, which has been declared to be a controlled area, within the meaning of the Scheduled Road Act, 1963. It is further submitted that as per the notification dated, 14.9.2006 (Annexure P-5), issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, before raising of the construction, a developer was required to obtain an environmental clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short "the 1986 Act"). The environmental clearance, obtained in year 2009, had lost its validity after revision of the site plan thrice, in years 2011, 2012 and 2013, respectively, because, as per the 2006 notification, the builder was required to obtain a fresh "No Objection Certificate" (environmental clearance) every time after revision of site plan but the builder, in contravention to the said provisions, went on carrying out construction activities illegally in violation of various provisions of law. Much stress has been laid that due to the violations of the provisions of the 1986 Act and other Acts, the entire building has been rendered unsafe. Learned counsel for the petitioner-association has lastly argued that as per the initial site plan shown, it was mandatory on the part of the builder to provide minimum width of the road as 12 meters, so that in case of any eventuality, the fire tender could enter the building easily, but surprisingly enough, the builder has not complied with all the fire safety norms as enumerated in the National Building Code and thereby clearly violating the provisions of the Fire Safety Act, 2009 (for short "the 2009 Act").
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-association and have also gone through the documents annexed with the writ petition carefully.;