RESURGENCE INDIA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this order, we shall dispose of two writ petitions being CWP Nos.4099 of 2004 and 6026 of 2007 as both are interconnected. In CWP No.6026 of 2007, petitioner seeks mandamus directing indepth enquiry by some independent investigating agency to ascertain the role of officials of the Department of Local Government of the Government of Punjab, Chief Town Planner and Municipal Bodies in Punjab in allowing massive violations of Building Bye-laws, Land Use Policy, Town Planning Schemes and Building Schemes in Punjab that have allegedly taken place over more than a decade and to fix responsibility of the municipal and other officials including the supervisory authorities who allowed these violations to occur.

(2.) In nutshell, what is stated is that many illegal structures/buildings in different parts of the State of Punjab have been constructed in violation of the Municipal Bye-laws and no action has been taken against the officials who allowed these structures/buildings to come up in the first instance. According to the petitioner, the compounding of the violations which are contrary to the Municipal Bye-laws cannot be allowed. On this ground, vires of the Punjab One-Time Voluntary Disclosure and Settlement of Violations of the Buildings constructed in violation of the Building Bye-Laws in the Corporations and the Municipalities Act, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") are challenged by the petitioner in CWP No.4099 of 2004.

(3.) Mr. Sidhu, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, states that in order to regularize these unauthorized constructions, the Punjab Legislature has enacted the Act. He further submitted that the Legislature was fully competent to enact such a legislation and there was hardly any justifiable legal ground to question the vires and wisdom of the legislation in this behalf. He submitted that similar law is enacted by other States as well. Specific reference is made to the Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2006 and the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2011. He also pointed out that the vires of the similar Act were challenged on identical grounds but the challenge was repelled by the Supreme Court in the case of Consumer Action Group and another v. State of T.N. And others, 2000 7 SCC 425, in the following manner:-