VED PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notice under Section 248 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ' for brevity sake) was issued to respondent No. 3 on 12.5.2000. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla passed orders on 6.6.2001. He came to a definite conclusion that earlier sanction was accorded on the basis of mutation No. 165 dated 17.12.1999 which stood cancelled and consequently sanction of map given on 15.3.2000 was withdrawn. He had also ordered that proceedings under Sections 253/254 shall also be initiated against respondent No. 3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation passed the orders on 5.3.2003. He ordered respondent No. 3 to remove unauthorized construction within two weeks from the receipt of the order. Respondent No. 3 assailed this order before the appellate authority prescribed under the Act. Respondent No. 3 also approached this Court by way of CWP No. 161/2003. It was decided on 25.2.2005. In sequel to the judgment rendered by this Court, respondent No. 3 preferred a revision before the Principal Secretary (UD). He passed the following order on 17.1.2006:

(2.) MR . Ashok Sharma, Advocate has vehemently argued that once the proceedings were initiated against respondent No. 3 which have culminated into the issuance of order dated 5.3.2003, the Principal Secretary (UD) has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. He further argued that Chapter -XIV of the Act deals with building regulations and the remedy against the order of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation to remove the unauthorized construction is provided by way of appeal to the learned District Judge of the Municipal area. In other words, his submission is that once the special provision exists i.e. Section 253, the general provision i.e. Section 403 of the Act could not be invoked by the Principal Secretary (UD).

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings of the parties.