R ANTONY DOSS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been listed after notice of motion. Since we intend to with the judgment of the learned single Judge as well as with the impugned order to be that of the prescribed authority under Sec. 79 (1) of the tamil Nadu Town and Planning Act, 1971 on the question whether the latter order is one by a competent or vitiated on ac-count of sub-delegation of the statutory power to a so-called Committee, we think it is not necessary to wait for any counter affidavit or to discuss other contention raised before us by learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) IT appears for the alleged violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Planning Act, 1971, and rules and regulations framed thereunder in deviating and construction of and in a building from the approved plan, etc. , a proceeding was against the petitioners-appellants under the Act. The petitioners-appellants meanwhile applied for a planning permission before the competent authority under and when the permission was not granted, appealed under Sec. 79 of the Act before prescribed authority. The impugned order dated 29. 5. 1991 in G. O. Rt. No. 288, Housing Urban Development Department, however shows that the competent authority in Housing and Urban Development Department disposed of the appeal in the light of certain recommendations of a certain appeal Committee. The order reads: "the appeal has been examined under sec. 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971; based on the remarks of the Member-Secretary, Madras Metropolitan Development authority in his letters second and fourth made by the appellant in reference third read above and placed before the Appeal Committee meeting held 26. 4. 91 for its recommendation on the appeal portion. 2. The Appeal Committee considered the appeal petition carefully and found that appellant's proposal violates the following development control rules: 1. 9 (d) (i) floor space index 2. 00 2. 23 Excess by 0. 23. 2. O-b I (ii) 3 (i) front set back 3. 50 m. 0. 18 m. less by 3. 32 m. 3. 19-b (ii)3 (ii) (1) side set back 4. 50 m. 1. 29 m. less by 3. 21 m. 0. 83m. less by 3. 67 m. 4. 19-b -I (ii) 3 (iii) Rear set back 3. 00 m. Nil. Less by 3. 00 m. due to main columns in rear boundary. 5. 20 parkings cars 4 Nos. Nil. Less by 4 Nos. Office area exceeds the permissible limit 9. 40 Sq. m. Plan does not reflect the site condition. ------

(3.) IT is well settled that a statutory authority shall act within the limits of the statute exercise its discretion only within such prescribed limits, and not beyond. A delegate statute will have no power to sub-delegate, and the maxim "delegatus non potest will be attracted if any function assigned to such an authority under the Act is found been delegated to any other person.