AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hemant Gupta, J.
Earlier, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 26.02.2009 whereby liberty was granted to the petitioner to avail statutory remedy of appeal contemplated under Section 33 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (for short ''the Act''). The Letters Patent Appeal No. 1120 of 2009 against the said order was allowed by the Letters Patent Bench on 18.05.2011 when an argument was raised that the legality and validity of Notification dated 20.01.2006 is challenged in the writ petition which cannot be subject to appeal. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 26.12.2008 and 07.02.2007 passed by the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority as well as the Notification dated 20.01.2006 in the present writ petition, inter alia, on the ground of it being illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner has also sought a writ in the nature of mandamus to modify the Letter of Intent dated 16.11.2006 claiming enhanced External Development Charges from the petitioner.
The Notification dated 20.01.2006 is challenged on the ground that the Chief Minister could not frame a policy as such policy decisions are required to be approved by the Council of Ministers. However, a perusal of the Notification shows that the Chief Minister was authorized to effect amendments in the policy in pursuance of the decision of the State Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 17.11.2008. Thus, the Chief Minister has finalized policy in terms of the delegated powers conferred on him by the Council of Ministers. Such decision is in exercise of the executive power of the State in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution of India, we thus cannot be said to be unjustified.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in terms of earlier directions of the Division Bench of this Court, the Chief Administrator has passed an order on 26.12.2008. It is contended that the Chief Administrator has not examined as to which policy would be applicable in respect of the demand of External Development Charges from the petitioner.
Once a statutory right of appeal is available to the petitioner in terms of Section 35 of the Act, the petitioner is well within its jurisdiction to take all possible pleas challenging the legality of the order passed by the Chief Administrator but statutory right of appeal cannot be by-passed only for the reason that the Chief Administrator has not considered which of the policy would be applicable in respect of demand of External Development Charges.
Consequently, we find no reason to entertain the present writ petition against the order passed by the Chief Administrator. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to avail the right of appeal contemplated under Section 33 of the Act, if the appeal is preferred within 30 days. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of statutory right of appeal, has sought to withdraw the writ petition so as to avail the remedy of appeal. In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to avail statutory right of appeal, provided the same is filed within 30 days from today.
Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.