Power of Government cannot be assailed.

1. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of declaration declaring the demolition notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated 12.6.2000 under Section 56(2) and 113(A) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and the Application, Assessment and Collection of Regularisation Fee (Chennai Metropolitan Area) Rules, 1999 read with Tamil Nadu Ordinance 5 of 2000, dated 23.8.2000 is ultra vires to Articles 213, 243W, 243ZE, 243ZF read with XII Schedule of the Constitution of India amended by Constitution 74th amendment and violative of Article 14 and liable to be quashed for excessive delegation and illegal, defunct and inconsistent with Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 read with Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules, 2000.

2. Accordingto the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the impugned notice to demolish the building in question has been issued under Section 56(2) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act 1971) to the petitioner, who is the purchaser of the building in question in 1996. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the said notice, after coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, (hereinafter called the Act IX of 1999) which came into effect from 1.8.2000, cannot be enforced as the Act 1971 has become defunct. The learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that the Application, Assessment and Collection of Regularisation fee (Chennai Metropolitan Area) Rules, 1999 cannot be sustained in law on the ground that after coming into force of the Act IX of 1999, the said Rules cannot be enacted and implemented. He has also challenged the Ordinance 5 of 2000 under which the Act IX of 1999 has been suspended in view of the fact that the question of suspending an enactment which came into force will not arise, and, for which there cannot be any ordinance as has been done in this case.

3. Even according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the cause of action for filing the writ petition is the impugned notice dated 12.6.2000, and the ultimate grievance of the petitioner is only on the notice dated 12.6.2000. He has also submitted that the petitioner is not willing to make application to regularise his building under the Application, Assessment and Collection of Regularisation Fee (Chennai Metropolitan Area) Rules, 1999.

4. The existence of deviation in the building is not in dispute. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not the person who deviated the plan, but he is only the purchaser of the building in 1996. Even from the impugned notice, I am able to see that the plan was sanctioned as early as on 25.8.1994, and even during construction, the vendor of the petitioner (builder) has made deviation and so the demolition notice was issued to him on 22.1.1996. A show cause notice for forfeiture of security deposit amount was also issued and the security deposit also was forfeited on 28.6.1996. Since the petitioner is the occupier of the said building with the deviation from sanctioned plan, the impugned notice under Section 56(2) of the Act 1971 has been issued. It is relevant to mention that the said notice was not issued under Section 113(A) of the Act 1971 as set out by the petitioner.

5. The learned senior counsel tried to submit that after implementation of the Act IX of 1999, the respondent cannot proceed with the impugned notice to demolish the petitioner’s building. First of all, the said Act has already been suspended. Even if ultimately the case of the petitioner that the suspension of the Act IX of 1999 is not valid, is accepted, according to Section 201(1)(C) of the Act IX of 1999, any notice issued by the Government or Municipality concerned immediately before the date of comme ncement of the said Act, shall, sofaras it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act, continue to be in force, and has to be deemed to be