AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surya Kant, J.—The petitioners have admittedly raised illegal and unauthorized construction without seeking prior permission of the Competent Authority. Their houses are sought to be demolished in compliance to the directions issued by this Court in exercise of public interest jurisdiction. The petitioners moved a Review Application which was also declined vide order dated 20.03.2014.
Faced with this, the petitioners now question the vires of Section 3(a) of the Haryana Management of Civil Amenities and Infrastructure Deficient Municipal Areas (Special Provisions) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').
The constitutionality of the above-mentioned Act, as a whole being not under challenge, we do not deem it necessary to express any views nor this order shall be taken as approval of the legislative object or policy behind its enactment. Suffice it to observe that under the Act, those illegal and unauthorized constructions which were raised prior to 30.06.2009, are sought to be regularized obviously to wriggle out of the directions issued by this Court from time to time to prevent the unauthorized mushroom growth of illegal colonies by the private builders. The only question raised before us is that instead of regularizing the unauthorized constructions raised prior to 30.06.2009, the legislature ought to have regularized even those illegal constructions which have been raised till the Act coming into force on 26.09.2013.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and perused the paper book.
The petitioners have made no attempt to find out the reasons as to why the legislature opted to fix ''30.09.2013'' as the cut-off date to regularize the illegal and unauthorized constructions.
Be that as it may, the prayer in the writ petition in a way seeks amendment of Section 3(a) of the Act so as to rewrite it for regularization of all those illegal constructions which have come into existence immediate before the Act came into force. Such a direction, in our considered view, would be beyond the scope of power of judicial review. Unless the petitioners make out a case that the cut-off date is arbitrary, based on pick and choose and is irrational, this Court would not be inclined to interfere with the same.
Dismissed.