Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 146
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
M. Sankareswaran & Another – Petitioner
Versus
State by Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Chennai – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition No. 25124 of 2017
Decided On : 02-01-2018
For the Petitioners:V. Karthick, Senior Counsel for M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co., Advocates.
For the Respondent:P. Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor, N.R. Elango, Senior Counsel for M. Jeeva, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners' actions were not criminal misconduct, and the administrative delay was the reason for not enforcing the earlier notice, as per the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1988, and the government orders related to infrastructure and amenity charges.
Headnote:
Criminal Misconduct - Infrastructure and Amenity Charges - Town and Country Planning Act, 1988, Section 13(2) - G.O.(MS).No.191 dated 01.06.2007, G.O.(MS).No.22 dated 25.01.2008, G.O.(MS).No.84 dated 08.04.2008, G.O.(MS).No.161 dated 09.09.2009 - The court discussed the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1988, and the various government orders related to infrastructure and amenity charges. The court highlighted the importance of sustainable development and the need for adequate funds for infrastructure and amenities, leading to the formation of an Infrastructure and Amenities Fund. The court also emphasized the rates prescribed in the government orders and their applicability to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, public servants, were accused of demanding reduced infrastructure and amenity charges for a construction project, causing financial loss to the government. The charges were based on the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1988, and government orders related to infrastructure and amenity charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' actions were not criminal misconduct, as they were in line with the government orders and the rates prescribed therein. The court emphasized that there was no dereliction of duty or criminal intention on the part of the petitioners, and the administrative delay was the reason for not enforcing the earlier notice. The court also noted the Supreme Court's decision quashing the criminal case against the other accused, which applied to the petitioners as well.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioners' alleged criminal misconduct in demanding reduced infrastructure and amenity charges, the applicability of government orders, and the administrative delay in enforcing the earlier notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1988, and the government orders related to infrastructure and amenity charges. The court emphasized that the petitioners' actions were not criminal misconduct and highlighted the administrative delay as the reason for not enforcing the earlier notice.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the Special C.C.No.3 of 2014 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpattu, was quashed.
1. The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Special C.C.No.3 of 2014 and quash the final report dated 03.06.2014 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpattu.
2. The averments made in the petition is extracted below for better appreciation of case.
(2.1) The first petitioner was working as Assistant Director in the Town and Country Planning Department in Chengalpattu Region in the year 2008. Subsequently, he was made as Regional Deputy Director (I/C) in the year 2009. The second petitioner was working as Supervisor in Thiruvallur area, Chengalpattu Region and was posted as Additional Charge to Maraimalai Nagar area in the same region on 30.06.2009. Both the Petitioners have been arrayed as Accused in Crime No.04-AC/2011/CC-II, for offences under Section 120B and 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988. The Respondent has filed a final report before Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpattu in Special C.C.No.3 of 2014. The charges have been framed and the trial is yet to commence in the said proceedings. The present Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the final report filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpattu in Special Case No.3 of 2014.
(2.2) The Respondent has registered a complaint against the petitioners and one Mr.P.Suresh, Managing Director, M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited and Mr.P.Karthikeyan, Director, M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited alleging that in respect of fixation of infrastructure and amenity charges pertaining to the multi-storied buildings proposed to be constructed by M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited in Maraimalai Nagar Municipality, the petitioners along with the said persons conspired and did not pursue the demand raised in terms of G.O.(MS).No.191 dated 01.06.2007 by fixing the infrastructure and amenity charges at the rate of Rs.1000 per Sq.mt. Instead kept the demand pending for a period of 10 months and raised a fresh demand in terms of subsequent G.O.(MS).No.161 dated 09.09.2009, reducing the infrastructure and amenity charges at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq.mt. The crux of the allegation is that the petitioner in order to ensure M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited derives the benefit from the subsequent G.O.(MS).No.161 dated 09.09.2009 reduced the infrastructure rate and thus caused revenue loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.8,68,41,250/- which was gain to the said M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited.
(2.3) In terms of Section 63(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act, inserted by way of Act 34 of 2007 with effect from 01.06.2007, every local authority or Planning Authority while granting building permit (or) planning permission, shall levy charges on the institution of use or change of use of land or building or development of any land or building in the whole area or any part of the planning area in order to meet the impact of the development and for ensuring sustainable development of urban and rural areas at different rates prescribed for different area by following procedures by providing adequate infrastructure and amenities. The Authorities shall levy infrastructure and amenities on any person who undertakes or carries out any such development or institutes any use or changes any such use. In so far as the Chengalpattu region is concerned, the Director of Town and Country Planning area is vested with the authority to levy infrastructure and amenity charges while according planning permission. In terms of the aforesaid provision the Government of Tamil nadu vide G.O.(MS).No.191 dated 01.06.2007 instructed the Director of Town and Country Planning to collect infrastructure and basic amenity charges for multi-storey building at the
