V ARUNSHANKER Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of declaration declaring the demolition notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated 12.6.2000 under Section 56(2) and 113(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and the Application, Assessment and Collection of Regularisation Fee (Chennai Metropolitan Area) Rules, 1999 read with Tamil Nadu Ordinance 5 of 2000, dated 23.8.2000 is ultra vires to Articles 213, 243W, 243ZE, 243ZF read with XII Schedule of the Constitution of India amended by Constitution 74th amendment and violative of Article 14 and liable to be quashed for excessive delegation and illegal, defunct and inconsistent with Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 read with Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2000.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned notice to demolish the building in question has been issued under Section 56(2) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act 1971) to the petitioner, who is the purchaser of the building in question in 1996. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the said notice, after coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, (hereinafter called the Act IX of 1999) which came into effect from 1.8.2000, cannot be enforced as the Act 1971 has become defunct. The learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that the Application, Assessment and Collection of Regularisation fee (Chennai Metropolitan Area) Rules, 1999 cannot be sustained in law on the ground that after coming into force of the Act IX of 1999, the said Rules cannot be enacted and implemented. He has also challenged the Ordinance 5 of 2000 under which the Act IX of 1999 has been suspended in view of the fact that the question of suspending an enactment which came into force will not arise, and, for which there cannot be any ordinance as has been done in this case.

(3.) THE petitioner'sgrievance has to be decided only on the basis whether the impugned notice can be enforced in accordance with law or not. THE enforceability of the impugned notice is not on the basis of the validity of Tamil Nadu Ordinance 5 of 2000, dated 23.8.2000, and the Application, Assessment and Collection of Regularisation Fee (Chennai Metropolitan Area) Rules, 1999. When the impugned notice can be enforced under either one of the said Acts, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned notice un der the guise of challenging the Application, Assessment and Collection of Regularisation Fee (Chennai Metropolitan Area) Rules, 1999, read with Tamil Nadu Ordinance 5 of 2000, dated 23.8.2000. THE petitioner has challenged the Ordinance 5 of 2000, dated 23.8.2000, under which the Act IX of 1999 has been suspended.