RAM PARKASH Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this case is the owner of the estate known as Flora Hotel, Simla. He wanted to make certain additions and alterations to the Flora Hotel and so with that object he made an application with a plan attached, to the Municipal Corporation, Simla, i.e., Respondent No. 2, for sanction. The concerned officers of the Corporation gave 'no objection certificate' for the necessary additions and alterations as contemplated by the owner. The Executive Officer, accordingly, gave sanction vide order, dated 29th of July, 1969, (Annexure PA). He accordingly started construction, but later on the Executive Officer of the Corporation informed by an order dated 22nd August, 1969, that the Deputy Commissioner, Simla, had by his order, dated 1st July, 1969 (Annexure PB) suspended the order granting sanction for additions and alterations and intimated him not to undertake work till a further reference from his office was issued. The Petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner several times for the final orders and he was apprised of the suspension of the Executive Officer's sanction order and the grounds suspending the same that the Town and Country Planner to whom the ferro copy of the plan had been referred had not given a "no objection certificate" to the proposal which intimation had been conveyed to the Executive Officer. Thereafter the Petitioner approached the Executive Officer to supply the copy of the grounds on which the Town and Country Planner had not given the ferro copy of the plan for effecting the additions and alterations, but he did not receive any reply and, therefore, he challenged the order, dated 29th July, 1969, communicated to him by the Executive Officer on the grounds enumerated in para 4 (a) to (f) of the petition and he, therefore, prayed for quashing the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Simla, dated 1st July, 1969, as conveyed to the Petitioner vide letter No. 7894/991/DC, dated 9th September, 1969, by the Executive Officer, Simla Municipal Corporation, suspending the implementation of the order, dated 29th July, 1969, passed by the Executive Officer.

(2.) The Respondent No. 1 in his return admitted having passed the suspension order and the reason for having suspended the order was that 'no objection certificate' had not been obtained from the Executive Officer, before sanctioning the plan and that it was done strictly in accordance with the policy of the Government. The Simla Town Planning Scheme had already been taken up by the Himachal Pradesh Govt. and under that scheme the Town Planner Himachal Pradesh had to be consulted by the Committee before granting permission for the construction of a building. The order of the Executive Officer was rightly suspended by Respondent No. 1 under Sec. 247 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Executive Officer was not competent to sanction the plan according to the decision of the Municipal Committee and instructions issued by the Himachal Pradesh Government in that behalf and as such his action was quite legal. Further it was averred that the case was later on referred to the Town planner who informed that the construction was going to interfere with the town planning and it was in accordance with his report that the order dated 29th of July, 1969 was suspended.

(3.) Sec. 247 under which the power to suspend the order of the Executive Officer has been exercised by the Deputy Commissioner says that the Deputy Commissioner may suspend the execution of any order/resolution...if in his opinion the resolution, order or act is in excess of the powers conferred by law or contrary to the interests of the public or likely to cause waste or damage of municipal funds or property, or the execution of the resolution or order, or doing of the act, is likely to lead to the breach of the peace, to encourage lawlessness or to cause injury or annoyance to the public or to any class or body of persons. The reasons assigned in para 4 (a) of the reply are that the suspension of the Executive Officer's order was strictly done in accordance with the policy of the Government. That the Simla Town Planning Scheme had already been taken up by the Government and under that scheme it was enjoined that in order to avoid unplanned growth of the town, the Town Planner, Himachal Pradesh, should be consulted by the Committee before granting permission for the construction of any building, and that the Municipal Committee had also decided to refer the buildings cases to the Town Planner before they were sanctioned but it may be stated that no such resolution of the Committee has been placed on the record to establish the averments of the Respondent. In so far as the reply of the Respondent is concerned, it does not satisfy the requirements of Sec. 247 under Which the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to take action for the suspension of any resolution or order of the Committee.