Principal, P.N. Tagore Model School vs Advisor to the Administrator, U.T.Chandigarh

G.S. Singhvi, J.—In this petition filed on 21.8.1993, the petitioner has challenged the vires of Section 8A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and Rule 9 of the Chandigarh (Sales of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960 on the ground that the same are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Perusal of the averments made in the writ petition shows that P.N. Tagore Model School was running in a residential house (Kothi No. 140, Sector 15A, Chandigarh) owned by respondent No. 4. Vide notice Annexure P3 dated 14.7.1993, the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh, called upon the Principal of the School and the owner of the premises to explain their position regarding the misuse of the site in question. It appears that instead of putting appearance before the concerned authority and explaining its position, the School through its Principal instituted this petition challenging the vires of Section 8A of 1952 Act and Rule 9 of 1960 Rules.

When the case was taken up for motion hearing on 24.8.1993, the Court made the following order :

"Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not press the issue regarding vires of Section 8A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952.

Notice of motion for 17.9.1993. Operation of Annexure P3 is stayed till further orders."

Although the writ petition has remained pending for the last about 5 years, the respondents have, for reasons best known to them, refrained from filing written statement. During this long period, they never made any attempt to bring it to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has not even challenged the legality of notice Annexure P3 of which operation was stayed on 24.8.1993. This speaks volumes the negligence/connivance of the officials of the Chandigarh Administration with the petitioner.

Be that as it may, in our opinion, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed because :

(i) The vires of Section 8A of 1952 Act has not only been upheld by this Court in Ram Puri v. Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh U.T. Chandigarh, AIR 1982 P&H 301, but also by the Apex Court in Babu Singh Bains v. Union of India and others, JT 1996(9) S.C. 371 : 1996(3) RCR (Civil) 752 (SC). In view of these judgments, there is no warrant for this Court to reexamine the constitutional validity of the impugned provision.

(ii) Rule 9 of 1960 Rules which has been framed by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 22 of 1952 Act also deserves to be upheld on the basis of the reasons recorded in the aforementioned judgments of this Court and the Apex Court.

(iii) The petitioner has not challenged the legality of the notice Annexure P3 and even if the same was to be done by the petitioner, we do not find any ground to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to invalidate the notice because mere issuance of notice does not in any manner adversely affect the rights of the petitioner. If, at all, the competent authority passes an order adversely affecting the petitioner, then the remedy of appeal and revision can be availed by it under Section 10 of the Act of 1952.

For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. It shall now be open to the respondents to take further proceedings against the petitioner on the ground of misuse of the residential premises.