Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1452 (PAT)

Arun Kumar Singh v. Patna Municipal Corporation

2012-10-11

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2012
ORAL ORDER Petitioner was compelled to approach the High Court when by virtue of an order contained in Annexure-4 dated 18.9.2007 the Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipality imposed upon the petitioner fine, five times the condonation fee. This was also ordered to be recovered by all means. 2. Counsel representing the petitioner submits that payment of condonation fee is an obligation upon the petitioner arising from the provisions of the Building Bye-laws notified under the erstwhile PRDA Act. However, on close scrutiny of the bye-laws or substantive provisions of the Act, there is no statutory entry which would show that over and above the condonation fee, a fine can also be imposed and ordered to be recovered. The thrust of the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that fine amounts to deprivation of property of the petitioner and the same cannot be done without authority of law even if property is a statutory right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 3. Matter was adjourned on several occasions. Counsel representing Patna Municipal Corporation was directed to point out the statutory provisions from where power has been derived. After much delay and deliberation, the best piece of evidence which they have produced in the counter affidavit, is a so-called resolution of the Empowered Standing Committee, which has been annexed as Annexure-C. 4. Learned senior counsel Mr. Lalit Kishore appearing on behalf of the Corporation has tried to prevail upon the court that it is not a case of no power having been vested in the Municipal Commissioner to pass such an order. He was only enforcing what has emerged from the decision of the Empowered Committee. However, on being questioned closely as to root entry in the statute or the Act, from where such resolution could be adopted and power to impose fine, five times the condonation fee has not been pointed out. 5. The Court is of the opinion that in view of above, obviously the decision to impose fine five times the condonation fee is a decision exceeding the power and jurisdiction of the Municipal authorities without any statutory or legal force behind it. 6. Writ is allowed. Annexure-4 dated 18.9.2007 stands quashed.