The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Executive Committee was empowered to make decisions regarding charges for additional floor area and that the regulations were not ultra vires.

K.S. Rathore, J.-Since all these writ petitions involve similar question of law thus the same are decided by this common Judgment . The facts of the case of the Writ Petition No. 5031/1994, Ms. Sumeru Enterprises Jaipur vs. State, are taken as a leading case.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Master Plan of Jaipur City came into force on 04.06.1976 wherein the land in dispute which was situated at MI Road, Jaipur has been earmarked for commercial use. The J.D.A. Act, 1982 came into force of 110.1982. Under the J.D.A. Act, Jaipur Development Authority (Building) Regulations, 1989 are framed and Clause 12.2 of the Regulations, 1989 reads as under:-

3. And in the Regulations, 1989, Table 6 is under challenge and the petitioner seeks writ, order or direction to quash and set aside Note. 2 of Table 6 of the Regulations, 1989 which is reproduced as under:-

4. The petitioners also challenged the letters dated 010.1993, 24.05.1994 issued by the respondents and also challenged the decision of the Executive Committee dated 11.07.1988 and 010.1985.

5. Vide letter dated 010.1993, the Member Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority informed the petitioner that the additional IIIrd floor plans submitted by you on the above mentioned subject have been approved subject to payment of additional floor charges etc. by the BPC meeting held on 05.06.1991. And the petitioner is called upon to deposit Rs. 31,19,407/-and vide Annexure-11 dated 24.05.1994, again informed about the payment of the dues with regard to additional floor charges and release money.

.6. The petitioners assail the decision taken by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is empowered under regulation to consider the charges for additional floor and in Agenda Item No. 37.9, the guidelines for allowing additional floor area are laid down. And after due consideration the agenda notes the Executive Committee resolved that the Executive Committee decision of 010.1985 relating to additional floor area in respect of Multi Storied flatted buildings should be adopted with the following modification.:-

.(a) The front set back should be 40 or as prescribed for that area, whichever is more;

.(b) A charge equivalent to the prevailing reserve price of land in that scheme or the nearest scheme should be charged instead of Rs. 50/-per sq. mtr. for the extra floor area thus permitted;

.(c) For commercial buildings in the existing developed areas charge for the extra floor shall be on the basis of reserve price of commercial land in that scheme or the nearest scheme.

7. The petitioner also raised the question that the power once delegated cannot be further delegated and in support of his submissions he placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by Honble the Supreme Court in the case, Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. Sharadkumar Jayanti Kumar Pasawalla & Ors., reported in AIR 1992 Supreme Court 2038.

8. Having heard rival submissions of the respective parties and upon careful perusal of the regulation, the Executive Committee is fully empowered to take decision for charges to be levied for additional floor and thus the Executive Committee has rightly exercised the power and fixed the charges for additional floor and the ratio decided by Honble the Supreme Court in the case Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, (Supra), is not applicable to the instant case. It is not a case of further delegation because the Executive Committee delegated power and the Executive Committee rightly exercised the power to levy the charge for additional floors.

9. I am also not convinced with the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner is not able to convince as to how Note 2 to Table 6 of the JDA Building Regulations, 1989 is ultra vires and contrary to the regulations. On the contrary, Table 6 lays down criteria of levying the floor charges it cannot said to be unconstitutional and ultra vires.

10. And thus the decision of the Executive Commi