JUDGMENT

Sanjay Karol, A.C.J. - The questions, which arise for consideration in these petitions, are:

i) . As to whether insertion of Section 30-B, by virtue of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2016, in the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act, 1977, is contrary to the object and purpose of the said Principal Act, as also ultra vires the Constitution of India?

ii) . As to whether the constitutional validity of the amending provision is not ultra vires the Constitution, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Consumer Action Group vs. State of T.N., (2000) 7 SCC 425?

iii) . As to whether arbitrariness cannot be a ground for holding the amendment to be ultra vires the Constitution, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Binoy Viswam vs. Union of India & others, (2017) 7 SCC 59?

iv) . If not, then as to whether the amendment is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, being arbitrary, irrational, illogical, capricious and unreasonable, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shayra Bano vs. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1?

v) . If the amendment is ultra vires, then as to whether it can be saved by adopting the doctrine of severability or not?

2. The impugned amendment carried out in the Statute, which starts with a non obstante Clause, confers power upon the Government, empowered Officer or Authority to exempt development of any land or building or class of lands or buildings developed on or before 15.6.2016, from all or any of the provisions of the Act, save and except certain exceptions, on payment of specified regularization fee.

3. Moot issue, as already mentioned, is as to whether it is within the legislative competence of the State to come out with such an amendment and whether the said amendment is violative of the Constitution of India, Part-III or otherwise, as also being inconsistent with the object of the Principal Act.

4. Shri Hitanshu Jistu, petitioner in CWP No.819 of 2017, is an Architect by profession. In this Writ Petition, filed as pro bono publico, he lays challenge to the amendment, inter alia, on the ground of it being illegal and against the mandate of ''good governance''.

5. Shri Abhimanyu Rathore, a practicing Advocate, petitioner in CWP No.612 of 2017, seeks reliance on a news report (Annexure P-3), published in ''Times of India'', wherein it is reported that State seeks to regularize 35000 illegal buildings, by way of an Ordinance, which was promulgated immediately prior to the amendment in question. He also seeks reliance on the report of the Committee, headed by Shri Shashi Shekhar, constituted by the National Green Tribunal in Yogendra Mohan Sengupta vs. Union of India (OA No.121 of 2014), dealing with Shimla City and Shimla Planning Area.

6. To similar effect is CWP No.704 of 2017, filed by Shri Raghav Goel, also a practicing Advocate.

7. Defending the legislation, not being arbitrary or beyond legislative competence, learned Advocate General seeks reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Consumer Action Group (supra) (three-Judge Bench) and Binoy Viswam (supra) (two-Judge Bench).

8. Opposing these petitions, several owners have filed applications for intervention, who were allowed to make submissions, through their respective counsel. (CMPs No.2727,3416,6059,6060,6061,6345,7297 & 7298 of 2017 in CWP No.612/2017 and 5203 to 5205, 6491&6492 in CWP No.819/2017). Also, learned counsel have cited certain decisions, which we have considered.

9. From the pleadings of the parties, certain undisputed facts have emerged on record. Himachal Pradesh is predominately a hilly State with a total population of 68.56 lakhs (6.85 millions), residing in an area of 55673 sq. km. Urban population of the State is 6.89 Lakhs (0.69 million) (10.04% of the total population). Within the State of Himachal Pradesh, there are two Municipal Corporations, 31 Municipal Councils and 21 Nagar Panchayats, which govern approximately 9.2% of the total popu