Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. Calling in question the order dated 6.2.1993, the petitioner filed CWP 169/93. In view of the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner withdrew the Suit No.33/93. On the 30th of March, 1993, a Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:

"CW 169 & CM 285 of 93 It is stated by the Counsel for respondent No.1 that what the NDMC is objecting to is the deviation from the sanctioned plan which are enumerated in para 21 of the petition. He further states that all these deviations can be regularised and are not contrary to the Building Bye-laws but a revised plan has to be filed.
Under these circumstances, the petitioner should file a revised plan within 8 weeks and the petitioner is allowed to resume construction at his own risk and costs.
Counsel for the respondent states that there is at present no violation of the Building Bye-laws the respondent will not seal the premises and the petitioner is, therefore, allowed to commence construction but if any deviation from the Building Byelaws takes place or revised plan is not filed within the two months, then the respondent will be at liberty to fresh action for sealing. The revised plan will be furnished for the purposes of regularising the aforesaid deviations. Order revoking sanction on account of the aforesaid deviation will not be given effect to.
Consequently, the respondent Committee cannot be now heard, at this belated stage, saying that plot in question now falls within the Lutyen's Bungalow Zone, and as such the construction would not be permitted.
The petitioner submits that the alleged clarifications to the Lutyen's Bungalow Zone, being relied upon by the respondent Committee in rejection of the revised plans, cannot be given retrospective effect. In other words, the said clarifications, would govern future sanctions of building plans in the said zone. The revised plans submitted for regularising of permissible deviations, are not to be regulated or governed by the subsequent clarifications to the guidelines pertaining to the Lutyen's Bungalow Zone. It is further submitted that the rejection of the revised plans by the respondent Committee is per-se arbitrary, illegal, high handed and unreasonable. It is a settled law that subordinate legislation or policy matters can never have a retrospective character."