N R I DEVELOPERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common issue which arises for adjudication in these petitions relates to the validly of the orders passed by the Additional Chief Administrator (Mohali), exercising the powers of the competent authority, and the notification dated 30. 1. 1997, issued Under Section 2 (1) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ).

(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding the aforementioned issue needs a brief narration. C. W. P. No. 14564 of 1997. N. R. I. Developers is a partnership firm constituted for development of colonies and sale of plots. After securing the certificate of registration under the Act, the petitioner submitted an application before the Additional Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Development Authority, Mohali Under Section 5 of the Act read with Rule 10 (1) of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules ). Along with the application, two of its partners submitted a declaration that they are owners of the land. By notification dated 27 9. 1996 issued Under Section 2 (1) of the Act, the Governor of Punjab appointed the Additional Chief Administrators of Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, S. A. S. Nagar (Mohali), Patiala and Ludhiana as competent authority to exercise all the powers and perform the functions under the Act within their respective jurisdiction. Thereafter the petitioner's application for grant of licence was considered by a committee consisting of the Chief Town Planner, Superintending Engineer (C), P. U. D. A. , Ludhiana and District town Planner, P. U. D. A. , Mohali, Annexures P. 8 to P. 12 are the documents exchanged between the petitioner and the authorities of the P. U. D. A. with regard to the grant of licence. Finally, licence no. LDH/97/7 dated 19. 2. 1997 was granted to the petitioner by the Additional Chief Administrator, P. U. D. A. , Ludhiana. However, after 2 months and 6 days, the respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order cancelling the said licence on the ground that in view of the notification dated 30. 1. 1996 issued by the Government, the Additional Chief Administrator Ludhiana was not competent to grant licence to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the notification dated 30. 1. 1997 on the ground of malafide and arbitrariness. Its plea is that the power Under Section 2 (1) cannot be exercised for arbitrary change of competent authority. The order dated 25. 4. 1997 has been challenged on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and non-application of mind. According to the petitioner, the impugned notification withdrawing the powers of competent authority from the Additional Chief Administrator is ineffective and redundant qua it because the proceedings for grant of licence had been completed by the competent authority before the issuance of that notification. The petitioner has also pleaded that the Additional Chief Administrator, Ludhiana was not even aware of the notification by which his power had been withdrawn and as such, the cancellation of the licence should be invalidated. The respondent No. 2 has defended the cancellation of licence granted by the Additional Chief Administrator, Ludhiana on the ground that the said officer did not have the jurisdiction or authority to grant licence on 19. 2. 1997. The respondent has pleaded that the Additional Chief Administrator had acted beyond his brief in spite of knowing that he was not the competent authority after 30. 1. 1997. Reference has also been made to the notification dated 21. 5. 1997 vide which the Chief Administrator, P. U. D. A. , has been declared as the sole competent authority. In its replication, the petitioner has made an attempt to derive support from the fact that like the Additional Chief Administrator, Ludhiana other Additional Chief Administrators had also granted licenses for development of colonies in the areas beyond their territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner has quoted the examples of Chhabra Land and Housing Ltd. Ludhiana, Vikas House Building Co. Ludhiana, St. Soldier Properties and Industries Ltd. , New Delhi, S. Balkar Singh son of Mihan Singh, Amritsar Sant Sunder Singh Nagar Co-op. House Building Society Ltd. and Vikas House O. (P) Ltd. Ludhiana who have been granted licences for development of colonies at Ludhiana, Jalandhar, Amritsar and Moga by the Additional Chief Administrator, Mohali. Civil Writ Petition No. 7105 of 1997. Barfanni Developers is a registered company. After having got itself registered under the Act, the petitioner applied Under Section 5 of the Act read with Rule 10 of the Rules for grant of licence. After processing its application, the Additional Chief Administrator, Ludhiana granted licence No. LDH 97/5 dated 13. 2. 1997 to the petitioner for development of residential-cum-commercial colony at Phagwara Road, Hoshiarpur. However, vide Annexure P14, the Additional Chief Administrator (Mohali) cancelled the licence on the ground that the authority which granted the licence was not competent to do so. We have heard Shri R. S. Mittal, Senior Advocate and Shri K. S. Dadwal, counsel for the petitioners, Shri Rupinder Khosla, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and Shri Rajan Gupta, Counsel representing P. U. D. A. and its authorities.

(3.) A careful reading of the provisions quoted above shows that the power to grant licence vests with the person appointed as the 'competent authority' Under Section 2 (1 ). The inquiry envisaged by Section 5 (2) has to be made by the competent authority and the licence has also to be granted by the said authority. Thus, no person or authority other than the one who is appointed by the State Government by notification in the official gazette as the competent authority can exercise the powers and functions earmarked for the competent authority under the Act and the Rules.