AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on I.A. No.4911/2019 (WP No.17394/2019) and I.A. No.4910/2019 (WP No.17787/2019), applications seeking amendment in the writ petition.
By the aforesaid amendment applications, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 05.10.2019 passed by the Building Officer, Municipal Corporation, Dewas whereby he has rejected the applications for compounding.
The petitioners are assailing the aforesaid order by way of amendment on the ground that under Madhya Pradesh Municipal (Compounding of Offences of Construction of Building Fees and Conditions) Rules 2016, the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation is a competent authority not the Building Officer. Since the application for compounding has been rejected during pendency of this petition, the application is hereby allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation submits that the power has been given to the Commissioner for compounding the offence, but there is no bar for the Building Officer to reject the application for compounding on the legal grounds. Such argument is fallacious because the authority, who competent to allow the application for compounding is also competent to reject the same under the Rules, 2016.
Initially, the petitioners have filed the present petitions being aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2019 whereby the Building Officer has directed for demolition of illegal construction. By order dated 22/08/2019, this Court has restrained the respondents from demolishing the construction raised by the petitioners. Though the petitioners are assailing the action of the respondent in the writ petitions that they have not raised any illegal construction and even if any extra construction is there that can be compounded as per the Rules for which they have submitted the applications and during pendency of these petitions, the applications have been rejected by the Building Officer.
Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 2016 is reproduced below:
"2. Definition.........
(a).......
(b)........
(c) "Competent Authority" in case of any Municipal Corporation means the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation and in case of Municipality and Municipal Council the Chief Municipal Officer of Municipality for residental construction and President-in Council for non-residental construction."
In view of the above, the competent authority in case of Municipal Corporation is Commissioner to consider the application for compounding and the procedure is prescribed in Rule 3 and 4. Rule 5 provides for compounding fees.
Prima facie, the Building Officer has rejected the application on merit, who is not competent authority. The application for compounding is liable to be considered by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation. Hence, the petition stands disposed of with direction to the Commissioner to consider the application for compounding.
The interim relief granted, shall remain in force for the next 30 days or till the Court decide the application which ever is earlier.
In case, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation rejects the application by speaking and reasoned order, the Corporation shall not carry out the demolition of the building in question for next 10 days to enable the petitioner to approach the Court of law.
With the aforesaid, the petitions stand disposed of.
Cc as per rules.