Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. According to the petitioners, provisions of the Act do not create any negative obligation of eviction of any bonafide occupant from any premises when such occupant has been in settled possession of the said premises for a long duration of time. Further from the provisions of the Act, no legislative intent delegating, expressly or impliedly the power to enact any summary procedure for eviction of parties concerned, is discernable. The said Rules are further challenged on the ground that they suffer from the vice of delegation of essential legislative functions which consists of determination or choosing of legislative policy and of formally enacting that policy into a binding Rule of conduct as opposed to acceptable delegation of only ancillary functions in order to fill up the details / gaps in the policy framed by the statute.

22. Respondent Nos.4 and 6 have therefore made a case in favour of upholding the vires of the impugned rules. The submissions in that regard have been made by Mr. Bali learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 6, and the same shall be referred to in the later part of the this judgment.

23. Mr. T.K. Ganju, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the present petition has been preferred by minor petitioners challenging the vires of the subject Rules wherein respondent no.1 has provided for a "procedure of eviction from property / residential building of senior citizens / parents" as Rule 22 (3) purported to be made under Sections 22 and 32 of the Act of 2007. He would submit that the Act does not authorize the State Government to formulate Rules specifically for a summary procedure for eviction and therefore the Rules in question have been made beyond the power and authority granted under the Act. Reliance is placed on General Officer, Commanding-in-Chief v. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav and Anr. 1998 2 SCC 351. According to him, the impugned amended Rules purport to create substantial rights, obligation and disabilities, in the form of summary procedure for eviction simplicitor on the specified therein. According to him such a provision for creation of substantive rights, disabilities and obligations constitutes essential legislative function which could not have been delegated. Moreover, general rule making powers cannot be construed to have been delegated to provide for an expansive policy / procedure. Reliance is placed on Global Energy Limited and Anr. V. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2009) 15 SCC 570, Kunj Behari Lal Butail and Others. V. State of HP and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 40 and Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association V. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 187.

According to him, it was never the intention of the legislature to provide for any remedy in the nature of eviction of children of the concerned parents or senior citizens. It is his submission that the State Legislature has exceeded its delegated legislative authority under the Act in setting up adjudicatory forums and vesting them with the impugned powers.

48. He would reiterate that Section 22 of the Act merely gives power to the District Magistrate to ensure protection of life and property of the senior citizens and to take administrative measures in furtherance of said objectives. It does not in any manner warrant creation of rules, quasi-judicial forums or adjudicate such rights which are not provided for by the parent Act. Such general / vague delegation cannot be said to be within the ambit of essential legislative functions. He would point out that even for setting up a Maintenance Tribunal, specific provisions are provided under the Act whereas there is nothing similar provided for setting up of separate Tribunals for eviction. He would refer to definition of the word "protection" from various dictionaries to submit that by no stretch of imagination can the said word be interpreted to mean eviction of children, relatives and others. He would submit that even under principles of Administrative Law, delegated legislation may be framed by the delegatee only within the strict confines of powers granted by the Statute. Reliance is placed on Kunj Bihar Lal Butail & Ors. (supra), Global Energy Ltd. (supra), General Office Commanding in Chief and Anr. (supra).

(ii) The impugned Rules purport to create substantive rights, disabilities and obligations in the form of summary procedure of eviction on the grounds of ill treatment and non maintenance, which are neither mentioned nor delegated under the Act.
(iii) The delegate cannot create substantive rights, disabilities and obligations which are not provided for under the parent Act as they constitute essential legislative function, which can neither be delegated nor construed to be delegated in vague and expansive manner.