CHHATWAL POTTERIES Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the respondents can compel the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,14,50,000/- as additional composition fee in respect of the building constructed by it is the question which arises for consideration and decision by this Court in this second round of litigation which appears to have been forced upon it by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon (respondent No. 2).

(2.) The facts relevant to the decision of the issue raised in the writ petition are that after obtaining sanction from the competent authority, the petitioner constructed building over land comprised in Khasra No. 1750 measuring 3 Bighas 3 Biswas, i.e. about 10355 square yards situated within the municipal limits of Gurgaon. After one year of the commencement of construction, respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 10.10.1996 (Annexure P.1) suspending the resolution passed by the Municipal Council-Gurgaon (respondent No. 3) vide which the building plan of the petitioner was sanctioned. This, respondent No. 2 did in the purported exercise of his power under Section 246 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In compliance of the order passed by respondent No. 2. Executive Officer of respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner to immediately stop construction of the building. The order passed by respondent No. 2 and the direction given by respondent No. 3 were challenged by the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 16505 of 1996 - M/s Chhatwal Potteries v. State of Haryana and Ors., During the course of hearing of that petition on 7.11.1996, the learned Advocate General, Haryana candidly stated that he is unable to defend the order passed by respondent No. 2 because no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the impugned decision was taken. After taking note of his statement, the Court quashed the impugned orders with liberty to respondent No. 2 to pass fresh order after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The operative portion of the Court's order dated 7.11.1996 reads as under:

(3.) Two months after the decision of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 issued notice dated 6.1.1997 requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why action may not be taken against it under Section 246 of the Act. In the reply dated 11.1.1997 filed on its behalf, the petitioner raised several objections to the validity of the notice but, at the same time, it requested that the violation, if any, may be compounded under Section 208 of the Act. Respondent No. 2 accepted the petitioner's request for compounding and vide order dated 5.2.1997 (Annexure P.6), he directed that maximum 15% composition fee be imposed upon it for constructing more area in Block 'B' than the sanctioned plan. The relevant portion of this order is reproduced below: