Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(1). The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) seeks quashing of the order dated 23.02.2005 (Annexure P7) passed by the Minister-in-Charge, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Government of Punjab in purported exercise of his powers under Section 45(8) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 (in short, 'the Act').

(Emphasis applied) (6). The Minister-in-Charge also directed the Chief Administrator to consider the case of the Trust for allowing non-commercial rates on the basis of the precedents given by it and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Trust.
(7). The aggrieved GMADA has approached this Court, inter alia, contending that the Minister-in-Charge ought not have restored the allotment of the site in favour of respondent No.2 who failed to deposit the requisite amount despite having been granted repeated opportunities. The directions contained in para 7 of the impugned order for considering the claim of the Trust for allotment of the site on non-commercial rates on the pattern of other societies, is also assailed. It is suggested that no right ever accrued in favour of respondent-Trust as only a Letter of Intent was issued and no allotment in the nature of a binding contract was ever made.

(9). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record.

(10). In response to a query as to how many time the revisional jurisdiction under Section 45(8) of the Act has been exercised by the Minister-in-Charge, it has been stated on oath by the Additional Chief Administrator, GMADA that no revision petition during the last five years has ever been decided by the Minister-in-Charge. It is the Secretary of the Department who has always exercised the revisional jurisdiction. (11). The fact situation of the case in hand was, however, altogether different as the Minister-in-Charge had to exercise the revisional jurisdiction for the reason that the then Secretary of the Department recused himself from the case leaving no choice for the Minister-in- Charge but to invoke the 'doctrine of necessity' and decide the revision petition himself. No other inference except the bona fide discharge of his official responsibility can, thus, be drawn against the ld. Minister-in-Charge.