Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This Writ petition has been filed in public interest by five persons challenging the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 419, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (ML) Department, dated 30-6-1998. By this G.O the Government laid down a scheme under which unauthorized constructions made till 30th June, 1998 could be regularized. The petitioners claim to be persons to whom the environment was dear. The petitioner No.1 is a retired Reader in Political Science from Zakir Hussain College, New Delhi. She is a member of 'the Society for Preservation of Environment and Quality of Life' (hereinafter referred to as 'SPEQL'). She is also a life member of Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as INTACH). She is also member of the Society to save Rocks, Hyderabad. The second petitioner is a retired officer of Indian Administrative Service. He retired prematurely while he was working as Vice Chairman of Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. He is also a member of SPEQL and INTACH. He is President of Shanti Foundation which is dedicated to the propagation of Gandhian philosophy. He is also author of 'Indian Metropolis: Urbanisation, Planning & Management' published in 1987. He also wrote a book titled 'The Last Nizam' in 1992. He has also authored 'Hyderabad under Salar-Jung' and 'Latin American Integration'. He is also engaged in editing a book titled 'Gandhi in 21st century'. He is also President for Centre for Deccan Studies. He had submitted a report to the UN Centre for Human Settlements in Nairobi on the status of environment of Hyderabad in 1996. The third petitioner is also member of SPEQL and INTACH. He joined Indian Administrative Service in 1959. He also took early retirement. He was Joint Secretary in the Government of India at the time of his retirement. He is Chairman of the A.P. State Committee of World wide fund for Nature. He is President of Anjana Foundation which is a registered trust dedicated in identifying and encouraging the needy students for granting scholarships. The fourth petitioner is also a retired officer of Indian Administrative Service. He was Secretary, Environment and Forest, Government of India at the time of his retirement. He is a member of a Government of Andhra Pradesh organization named 'the Environment Protecting Trainign & Research Institute, Hyderabad (EPTRI). He is also a consultant to the Bangkok based UN Environment Programme. He is Director of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development located in Khatmandu. The petitioner No.5 is a faculty member in 'Centre for Economic & Social Studies' (CESS). He claims to have written articles on urbanization and Environment and also displacement of persons under the dams. He claims that his articles had been published by various prestigious journals. Thus, the petitioners claim that they have been making efforts to create a healthy atmosphere for better and cleaner environment. Some of the petitioners had submitted a Memorandum to the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh in 1997 with regard to the floor area ratio. They contended that power of Government to relax floor area ratio and to condone violations was not in the interests of environment. They also claim to have submitted a memorandum to Chief Minister on 5-8-98. They submitted that, at present the city of Hyderabad is reeling under various problems like 'Heat island' effect, non-availability of water and power, absence of lungs spaces and places for children to play, traffic congestion, growth of slums, accumulation of urban wastes, over flowing sewerages, air pollution, water pollution, non-availability of parking places and depletion of ground water table. They submitted that, in spite of all these difficulties and in spite of their memorandums having been given to the Chief Minister, the impugned order was issued by which unauthorized constructions were sought to be regularized on payment of fee. It is further submitted that violations of laws were sought to be condoned and illegal constructions regularized without even studying its effects on the over all quality of life in Hyderabad. They also submitted the following data in the Writ petition;

a) The floor area ratio (FAR) in Hyderabad between 1.00 to 2.00 even before the G. Os. 419 of 30th July, 1998 and 422 and 423 of 31st July, 1998 was far higher than the recommended norm of 0.45 to 1.50 by the National Commission on Urbanisation. Even before July, 1998 the ratio was higher than in the cities of Delhi (0.83 to 1.33), Mumbai (0.50 to 1.33), Chennai (1.25 to 1.75) and Bangalore (0.75 to 1.75).

b) As against an international norm of public open spaces of 4 acres for 1000 people, the twin cities are estimated to have only 0.5 acres of actual public open space and greenery per 1000 people.

"Now, it is well settled that the court cannot grant directions which are contrary to law. Prima facie, this court is of the view that the Government has no power which renders a statute invalid by ordering wholesale regularization of illegal constructions. Therefore, before any direction is issued that the constructions which have been made by the petitioner admittedly without seeking any permission be regularized, this court is duty bound to see whether the Government order No. 419, M.A, dated 30th July, 1998 is intra vires to the Municipal Act and allied laws.

For this reasons, I stay the operation of the G.O. Ms. No. 419, M.A, dated 30th July, 1998 and the concerned authorities are directed not to regularize any constructions made in violation of the Municipal Act till further orders from this Court. However, if the respondents have any objection for continuance of this order they shall be at liberty to approach this Court."

3. Thereafter the respondents have referred to another order by which the stay granted on 10-8-98 was vacated. The operative portion of the order vacating the stay has also been quoted in the counter affidavit. The question which was raised by the learned Single Judge on 10-8-98 and the question which has been raised at the Bar by the Writ petitioners is, "Whether the Government has any power to issue the G.O, or not". I am afraid that the answer has not come from the State. In this context, let us examine the G.O.Ms. No. 419, dated 30-7-98. This G.O gives reference to seven orders passed prior to G.O. Ms. No. 419 and it has been admitted at the Bar that from 1992 to 1998 seven orders have been passed with the sole purpose of regularizing the unauthorized constructions. It shows a pattern that, after every year or two the authorities concerned turn a blind eye towards the constructions that are going on in the city of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, do not implement the laws, allow the people to make constructions unauthorisedly and after a year or two they pass orders laying down schemes for regularization. In 1992 G.O. Ms. No. 87 was issued by which a scheme was laid down under which unauthorized constructions made prior to 31-12-91 could be regularized. So, by this order the constructions made unauthorisedly before 31st December, 1991 got regularized. Thereafter, another order came to be passed on 14-8-92 only after six months of issuing G.O. Ms. No. 87. By this order the concession given in G.O. Ms. No. 87 was extended to Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali Urban Development Authority region and this order made it clear that this would be a 'one time measure'. Then the orders have been extended from time to time by G.O. Rt. No. 192, dt. 5-11-92, G.O. Rt. No. 235, dt. 16-2-93, G.O. Rt. No. 240, dt. 18-2-93, G.O. Rt. No. 1240 dt. 1-9-93, G.O. Rt. No. 424, dt. 6-4-94, G.O. Rt. No. 425, dt. 6-4-94, G.O. Rt. No. 710, dt. 17-6-95 and G.O. Rt. No. 711, dt. 17-6-95. Then the G.O. Ms. No. 243, dated 22-5-96 was issued. In this G.O the unauthorized constructions made upto 30th August, 1996 were sought to be regularized. Thereafter, another order came to be passed on 17-12-97 by G.O. Ms. No. 356. By this order the constructions made upto 30th September, 1997 were sought to be regularized. Time for making such applications was given upto 30th April, 1998 which was extended upto 31st July, 1998 by G.O. Ms. No. 289, dt. 25-5-98. In this G.O. Ms. No. 289 only time was extended for entertaining the applications for regularization of unauthorized constructions which were made prior to 30th September, 1997. Thereafter, G.O. Ms. No. 373 dated 1-7-98 was issued by which the constructions made unauthorisedly prior to 30th June, 1998 were sought to be regularized. Then, the impugned G.O was issued on 30th July, 1998 when the time fixed for making applications under the earlier G.O was coming to an end. By this Order now the time was again extended beyond the dates at which the unauthorized constructions were to be regularized.