Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. In order to resolve the controversy raised in the appeals, it would be advantageous to reproduce Article 73 of the Constitution, Section 41 of the DD Act of 1957, as well as Sections 235 and 241 of the NDMC Act, 1957.

Article 73 of the Constitution reads as under:

"Extent of executive power of the Union -
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of the Union shall extend -
(a) to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws; and

8. If one examines the scheme envisaged by the DD Act, 1957, it becomes, at once clear that the Delhi Development Authority is constituted under Section 3 of the said Act to achieve the objects. The objects relate to promoting and securing development of Delhi by preparing the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plans. Section 7 which falls within Chapter III of the DD Act, 1957 provides for preparation of the Master Plan. Section 8 of the DD Act inter- alia provides that simultaneously with the preparation of the Master Plan or as soon as may be thereafter, the Authority shall proceed with the preparation of a Zonal Development Plan for each of the zones into which Delhi may be divided. Section 8(2) sets out what the zonal development plan may contain whereas Section 9 requires that the master plan as well as the Zonal Development Plan for a zone prepared, has to be submitted by the Authority to the Central Government for approval. Section 11 of the Act provides that after a plan is approved by the Central Government, the Authority has to publish in such a manner, as may be prescribed by regulations, a notice stating that a plan has been approved and the date of the first publication of the notice is the date on which the plan comes into operation. Chapter IV deals with development of lands. What is stipulated in Section 12 of the DD Act is that neither the authority nor any other local authority shall sanction any plan which shall be contrary to the development norms approved under the Act. The record of the case establishes that the Master Plan of Delhi, came into force with effect from August 1, 1990. The record further shows that Zonal Development Plan, Zone (Division) D New Delhi was approved by the DDA on July 27, 1993. During the pendency of the petition before the High Court, the Zonal Development Plan was approved by the Central Government on October 1, 1999 excluding LBZ area as contained in the Ministry's guidelines dated 8.2.1988. It means that the Central Government while approving Zonal Development Plan has approved the Ministry's guidelines dated 8.2.1988 under the Act and therefore, in terms of Section 12 of the Act neither the Authority nor the local authority could have sanctioned the plans submitted by the respondents, which were contrary to the Ministry's guidelines dated 8.2.1988. Further, the question of revision of guidelines prescribed for construction in LBZ in New Delhi was under consideration of the Central Government and the Central Government by its communication dated 6.10.1995 directed the D.D.A. and others to enforce existing guidelines strictly. There is no manner of doubt that, the directions are issued by the Central Government vide letter dated 8.2.1988 and 6.10.1995, in exercise of its powers under Section 41 of the D.D. Act and are binding on the Authority. It is relevant to notice that after August 1, 1990 the concept of LBZ guidelines was incorporated in the Master Plan and since then LBZ guidelines have become binding as part of the Master Plan. The relevant portion of the Master Plan 2001 relating to LBZ reads as under:

(ii) Pending finalization of detailed development norms in respect of LBZ areas, construction of basement in residential plots shall not be permitted."

The LBZ guidelines dated 8.2.1988 were reiterated and directed to be strictly enforced on May 17, 1996, i.e. after coming into force of the NDMC Act, 1994, and therefore became directions issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 235 of the NDMC Act. The direction issued by the Central Government on May 17, 1996 under Section 235 of the NDMC Act and directions issued on 8.2.1988 and 6.10.1995 under Section 41 of the DD Act were binding on the Chairperson while exercising powers under Section 241 of the NDMC Act and no illegality was committed by him in refusing to grant sanction to the building plans submitted by the respondents. The plea that the directions dated 8.2.1988 etc. should be treated as administrative instructions not binding on the authorities acting either under DD Act or NDMC Act cannot be upheld as those guidelines have the force of law and cannot be termed as administrative instructions, more particularly in view of non-obstante clause with which Section 235 of the NDMC Act begins. Section 235 of NDMC Act cannot be construed to mean that it confers only powers to issue administrative instructions. Section 235 is a salutary provision of the Act and has overriding effect over other provisions of the Act including Section 241 of the Act. The scheme envisaged by Section 235 and 241 of the Act is such that under Section 241 of the Act the Chairperson has power to sanction the erection of a building or the execution of a work unless such building or work contravenes the provisions of any bye-law made in that behalf or of any other law or rule, bye-law or order made under such other law whereas the Chairperson has no option but to exercise his powers and discharge his functions under Chapter XIV which includes Section 241 of the Act also, under the general superintendence, direction and control of the Central Government in view of mandatory provisions of Section 235 of the Act. Moreover, development in LBZ cannot be undertaken in violation of the provisions of the DD Act, the Master Plan and the Zonal Plan. Even assuming that the LBZ guidelines are not relatable to DD Act or NDMC Act, the Central Government undoubtedly could, in exercise of executive power introduce those guidelines. At this stage, it would be instructive to refer to the extent of executive power of the Union as provided in Article 73 of the Constitution. Article 73 inter-alia provides that, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the executive power of the Union extends to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws. The Parliament has enacted The Delhi Development Act, 1957 and the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994. Article 73 does not define what an executive function is, neither does it mention the matters over which the executive power is exercised. The extent defined in Article 73 is not exhaustive. The Union Government has power to issue executive directions relating to the matters dealt with under The DD Act, 1957 and The NDMC Act, 1994, though the directions contrary to the provisions of those Acts cannot be issued. The executive power of the Union, under Article 73 extends to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws and hence, the field in which law could have been made, executive instructions may be issued in the absence of legislation in the field or if there is existing legislation, then to supplement it. Viewed in the light of above principles, there is no manner of doubt that LBZ guidelines dated 8.2.1988 will have to be regarded as issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers under Article 73 of the Constitution. Evidently, the guidelines dated 8.2.1988, 17.5.1996 and 9.5.1997, issued in exercise of power conferred by Article 73, are for the planned development of Delhi as well as for achieving objects of DD Act and N.D.M.C. Act. Therefore, those guidelines cannot be ignored by Court. However, as observed earlier, the directions issued under Section 41 of the DD Act, 1957 and Section 235 of the NDMC Act by the Central Government, are binding on the Chairperson when he exercises his powers under Section 241 of the NDMC Act, 1994. The legislative mandate incorporated in Section 41 of the DD Act, 1957 and Section 235 of the NDMC Act relating to control of the Central Government as well as contents of Master Plan 2001, which makes a special reference to the LBZ and on the maintenance of its character, could not have been ignored by the High Court while deciding the petition filed by the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution. It deserves to be mentioned that the LBZ guidelines became statutory after their incorporation in the Zonal Development Plan on October 01, 1999. The Zonal Development Plan prepared under Section 8 of the DD Act and approved by the Central Government has legal sanction and provisions contained therein are mandatory in nature. In view of the provisions of Section 241 of the NDMC Act, the building plan submitted by the respondents which are contrary to the provisions of the Zonal Development Plan approved by the Central Government under the DD Act could not have been sanctioned.

13. Therefore, this Court is of the firm opinion that it was wrong for the High Court to make any adverse comments regarding the power of the Prime Minister's Office to relax the guidelines on the ground that no such power of relaxation was vested in the guidelines themselves. In the instant case the question of relaxation would arise only if power to relax the same had been vested in same authority subordinate to the office of the Prime Minister but since the guidelines did not confer power to any other authority it was only the Prime Minister's Office itself which could have relaxed the guidelines on a case to case basis, exercising powers under the General Clauses Act read with (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. The reasons given by the High Court for ignoring the mandate contained in LBZ guidelines that it is a case of excessive delegation, is difficult to uphold because the general power to issue directions either under Section 41 of the DD Act or under Section 241 of the NDMC Act are/were to be exercised for the planned development of the Delhi and it is not even respondents' case that LBZ guidelines are not in conformity with the object of either DD Act or the NDMC Act, 1994.