The government order on reduced infrastructure charges is not retrospective; thus, liabilities incurred before its issuance must adhere to earlier regulations.

ORDER :

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

Both the writ petition arise out of the same factual matrix and involve common issues. Hence, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order

2. The writ petition in W.P. 31022 of 2014 arise under the following circumstances:-

3. The petitioner is a Trust carrying on activities in the field of education.It is running several Schools and Colleges. One such College is Agni Engineering College and Technology. The petitioner obtained approval and put- up construction for the said college. The initial construction, took place in the year 2001. Subsequently, in 2006, the petitioner sought permission to raise additional construction over the existing building. The application was filed with the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent forwarded the application to the State Government, which gave an appropriate direction for granting sanction. The superstructure that exists on the land after the additional construction consist of ground, first and second floors.

4. The State of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.191, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 01.06.2007, directing the levy of Infrastructure and Amenities (I&A) charges. Subsequently, another order was passed in G.O.Ms.No.215, Housing and Urban Development Department (UD4.2) Department dated 02.07.2007 permitting collection of 50% of the I&A charges at the time of finalisation of the application for grant of planning permission and the remaining 50% be collected in two instalments of 25% each.

5. Thereafter, the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Levy of Infrastructure and Amenities) Rules, 2008, were notified. These Rules empowered the appropriate authorities to collect the charges within the minimum and maximum amount fixed under Rule 4. The minimum and maximum rates for special buildings were fixed at Rs.250 and Rs.500 respectively. Insofar as institutional buildings are concerned, the minimum and maximum rates were fixed at Rs.100 and Rs.200/- respectively.

6. On 08.02.2008, the 1^st respondent permitted those seeking permission, to make initial payment as Rs.100 to I&A charges, provided, they executed an indemnity bond for payment of balance before the issuance of completion certificate. On account of issuance the of these orders, the 3^rd respondent called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,22,16,000/- towards I&A charges and Rs.2,67,200/- towards development charges. This demand was raised on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.84, Housing and Urban Development (UD4-1) Department dated 08.04.2008.

7. The petitioner informed the 3^rd respondent that the demand was erroneous, since it had treated the petitioner as a Multi-Storey Building (MSB) instead of an Institutional one. Consequently, it sought to come under Serial No.3 of Rule 4, rather than Serial No.2 of G.O.Ms.No.84 dated 08.04.2008.

8. Meanwhile The Government was moved by various persons, interested in construction industry, who sought reduction of charges. They pointed out that the real estate market had taken a beating and hence, requested the Government to accord some relief to them. Considering the request, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.161, Housing and Urban Development (UD 4(1)) Department dated 09.09.2009. By this order, the minimum and maximum rates previously fixed under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Levy of Infrastructure and Amenities) Rules, 2008, were ‘done away’ with. Insofar as the Institutional Buildings are concerned, the rate for Chengalpattu region, under which the petitioners' building falls was fixed at Rs.100.

9. The petitioner states that as the rates fixed under Rule