Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 898 - HC - Indian LawsLand allotted by DDA for institutional land - Additional Floor Area Ration (FAR) charges - Amount deposited for additional FAR under protest - Procedural provisions as retrospective - Doctrine of fairness - Held that:- In the decision reported in Indian Tobacco Association [2005 (8) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the doctrine of fairness was held to be a relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation. The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as Vijay [2006 (7) TMI 648 - SUPREME COURT]. It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature. In the instant case the moment the notification dated December 23, 2008 was promulgated, representations were made to do away with the condition of paying extra premium for the extra FAR. A committee was constituted to look into the issue, which decided that for three category of bodies : (i) Educational, (ii) Health Care and (iii) Social Welfare, the additional charges need to be withdrawn. The Central Government accepted the same. The notification dated July 17, 2002 was promulgated. The object of the legislation is to confer a benefit without taking away anybody's vested right and without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally. To confer a benefit is the express object of the legislation. The presumption thus would be that the intent was to give a retrospective effect. We have already reasoned above that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated July 20, 2012, though not so expressly stating, meaningfully read, has treated the notification dated July 17, 2002 as retrospective and thus the respondent in LPA No.107/2014 and the writ petitioners in the three captioned writ petitions would be entitled to succeed on three distinct and independent reasons. Firstly, parity with the writ petitioners of the various writ petitions which were allowed on July 22, 2012, which decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Secondly, on the doctrine of fairness adopted by the Supreme Court in Indian Tobacco Association's case and Vijay's case . Thirdly that the notification dated July 17, 2012 has to be given a retrospective operation. - Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
|