The main legal point established in the judgment is that a retrospective levy would not be permissible unless specifically authorized by law, and persons cannot be punished or penalized by laws of which they had no knowledge.

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioner impugns an administrative order dated 24.06.2013 issued by respondent No.2 whereby damage charges for unauthorized occupation of residential accommodation were revised w.e.f. 01.01.2013. The petitioner’s limited challenge is with respect to the retrospective revision of the said charges.

2. The short question to be considered is whether the respondents could revise the damage charges for unauthorized occupation of residential accommodation provided by respondent no.1, with retrospective effect. Briefly stated the relevant facts necessary to consider the controversy are that the petitioner, being an employee of respondent no.1, was allotted residential accommodation (being 1-B, 72 Nos. D.A. Flats, New Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi). The said residential accommodation was allotted to the petitioner on 04.01.2005. The petitioner superannuated from services on 31.12.2010 and was permitted to retain the premises in question till 31.08.2011. Admittedly, the petitioner has overstayed at the said premises.

3. Prior to vacating the premises in question, the petitioner approached the concerned department of respondent no.1 for clearance of his dues, which were calculated at `1,92,851/- for the period 01.09.2011 to 21.05.2013. The said amount was duly paid by the petitioner by a demand draft dated 17.05.2013 and a provisional clearance certificate was also issued to the petitioner on 17.05.2013. Thereafter, on 20.05.2013, the petitioner vacated the premises.

4. It is apparent from the above, that the petitioner had paid the damage charges for unauthorized occupation of the residential premises as per the prevalent rates and had handed over the vacant possession of the premises to the concerned authorities on 20.05.2013.

5. Subsequently on 24.06.2013, respondent No.2 issued an administrative order revising the rates for damage charges for unauthorized occupation of general pool residential accommodation.

6. The petitioner is aggrieved, inasmuch as, the said revision of damage charges are with retrospective effect from 1.1.2013.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the charges were revised in view of the Office Memorandum issued by Government of India on 06.12.2012 revising the damage charges w.e.f. 1.1.2013. It is further stated that the said charges have been uniformly levied. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the provisional clearance certificate issued to the petitioner on 17.05.2013 was only provisional and, thus, could not be relied upon by the petitioner to absolve him of further liability on account of revision in the rates of damage charges.

9. The petitioner appeared in person and submitted that he had overstayed on account of certain mitigating circumstances and had paid the full charges as applicable at the relevant time. He further submitted that after handing over the possession, no further liability ought to be imposed on him.

10. It is well settled that normally a retrospective levy would not be permissible unless specifically authorized by law. The Supreme Court in State of M.P. and Another vs. G.S.Dall & Flour Mills, AIR 1991 SC 772 had observed as under:-

“the notification of 3/71187 amending the 1981 notification with retrospective effect so as to exclude what may be described in brief as 'traditional industries' though, like Rule 14 of the deferment rules, the exclusion extends' even to certain other non-traditional units operating in certain situations. Though this notification purports to be retrospective, it cannot be given such effect for a simple reason. We have held that the 1981 notification clearly envisages no exclusion of any industry which fulfils the terms of the notification from availing of the exemption granted under it. In view of this interpretation, the 1987 amendment has the effect of rescinding the exemption granted by the 1981 notification in respect of t