Judgment : 1. In W.P. Nos. 1664/2013 and 16787/2013, the respective writ petitioners made a challenge to G.O. Ms. No. 234, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(1)] Department dated 30.10.2012 by and under which, Section 113-C was inserted in the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 [in short ‘TCP Act’] 2. In W.P. No. 16785/2013, challenge is made to G.O. Ms. No. 235 dated 30.10.2012 by and under which, the rules framed for assessment and collection of amount for Exemption of Buildings Rules, 2012, made in exercise of powers conferred by clause (bb) of sub-section (2) of section 122 read with section 113-C of TCP Act as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. In W.P. No. 16786/2013, challenge is made to Section 113-C of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2012 in so far as it applies to unauthorized constructions after 28.02.1999, as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. The present writ petitions are having a long and checkered history and the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 16785 to 16787/2013, namely, Citizen, Consumer and Civic Action Group, Adyar, Chennai, repeatedly made challenge to various amendments to the TCP Act with regard to regularization of unauthorized constructions, extension of time limit for regularization of such unauthorized constructions and though they succeed in their endeavour, still the problem of unauthorized construction and unregulated development is not over and the second respondent/Government, while passing G.O.Ms. No. 235 dated 30.10.2012 once again thought it fit to introduce/insert Section 113-C in the TCP Act, extending the cut off date for regularization of unauthorized developments made prior to 01.07.2007 and certain consequential amendments to Sections 57, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88 and 89 and therefore, challenge is made in these writ petitions. 5. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1664/2013, namely Thiru. 5. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1664/2013, namely Thiru. K.R. Ramaswamy alias Traffic Ramaswamy claims that he is the Founder Chairman of Tamil Nadu Social Workers Organization and the said organization is rendering free service to the citizens of the country mainly in Tamil Nadu by way of protecting their valuable rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, other laws, rules and regulations of the Central and State Governments and he was instrumental in banning Motorized Fish Cart vehicles and he also expoused the cause of the public by filing various Public Interest Litigations and based on the orders passed by this Court, certain remedial actions were also taken. It is contended by the writ petitioner that unauthorized constructions are rampant in the City of Chennai and the concerned authorities, namely, Corporation of Chennai and Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) have failed to take proper and effective steps to halt such unauthorized developments and no follow up action was taken and though it has been found that most of the buildings found constructed in violation of Floor Space Index (FSI), encroachment of Public streets and in some cases, without any planning permission also, the Government, who is having administrative control over the said authorities, instead of controlling them, is actually aiding and abetting the violators by granting exemption and on various occasions, has chosen to give cut off dates for regularizing such unauthorized constructions and the present amendment in the form of Section 113-C is in the nature of helping and aiding the violators, who with absolute impunity has chosen to violate and continue to violate almost all the provisions of the TCP Act and Development Control Rules. 6. It is further stated by the petitioner in W.P. No. 1664/2013 that the Ordinance No. 6 of 2012 further amending the TCP Act, 1971, namely, amending Sections 57, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88 and 89 and insertion of Section 113-C is in gross violation of the orders passed by this Court in Consumer Action Group v. The State of Tamil Nadu [ 2006 (4) CTC 483 ] and the said decision was confirmed by the Honorable Supreme Court of India vide order dated 24.11.2006 made in SLP (C) Nos. 18679 of 2006 and 19254 of 2006. 18679 of 2006 and 19254 of 2006. The petitioner would also contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Consumer Action Group and another v. State of T.N. and Others [ 2000 (7) SCC 425 ], wherein the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 16785 to 16787/2013, namely, Consumer Action Group made a challenge to Sections 113 and 113-A of the TCP Act and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that Section 113-A is a one time measure and it is a valid piece of legislation and not ultra vires of the Constitution of India and the Government of Tamil Nadu and other authorities are directed to take effective measures, to check at the root level, at the very nascent stage and see that such situations do not recur. 7. The State of Tamil Nadu, being a party to the said decision, in gross violation of the above said order, continue to evade its responsibility and in fact taking all efforts to aid and abet the violators and the present insertion of Section 113-C to TCP Act is one such attempt to help them and therefore, prayed for quashment of G.O. Ms. No. 234 dated 30.10.2012. 8. Citizen, Consumer and Civic Action Group [known as ‘Consumer Action Group’] had filed W.P. Nos. 16785 and 16786/2013 challenging the insertion of Section 113-C and two Government Orders in G.O. Ms. Nos. 234 and 235 dated 30.12.2012 wherein guidelines and rules have been framed to give effect to various amendments made to TCP Act in terms of Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.6/2012, more particularly in the form of Section 113-C of the TCP Act. The affidavits in the writ petitions have been sworn to by Tmt. Tara Murali, Trustee of the petitioner Group and she would state that the writ petitioner is a registered Public Charitable Trust and a Public Interest Group, located in Chennai dealing with issues of public health, safety, performance of public utilities, consumer and environmental protection. Originally the group was founded in the year 1985 by Mr. S. Govind Swaminadhan, former Advocate General of Tamil Nadu and the petitioner organization works for the protection of consumer and civic rights, more particularly in the areas of Government accountability, corporate responsibility, public health and safety and it is also involved in issues relating to environmental protection in the city of Chennai. 9. S. Govind Swaminadhan, former Advocate General of Tamil Nadu and the petitioner organization works for the protection of consumer and civic rights, more particularly in the areas of Government accountability, corporate responsibility, public health and safety and it is also involved in issues relating to environmental protection in the city of Chennai. 9. The petitioner has traced the history leading to the filing of these writ petitions and would state that it filed W.P.(C). No. 926/1988 on the file of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 113-C of the TCP Act, as it being ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also validity of the orders passed under which granting exemption by respondent No.1, namely, Government of Tamil Nadu. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on an elaborate discussion and consideration of the factual and legal position, held that Section 113-A of the TCP Act cannot be held to be invalid as it is within the competence of the State Legislature to legislate based on its policy decision, but expressed its concern as to the progressive illegality and concluded as follows: “41…. a) Section 113 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is valid. It does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of any essential legislative function. The Preamble, Objects and Reasons and various provisions of the Act give a clear-cut policy and guidelines to the Government for exercising its power. Hence it is neither unbridled nor without any guidelines. b) So far the impugned 62 GOs, each one of them, which has been annexed compositely under Annexure II to the Writ Petition, cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. c) Section 113-A as a one-time measure brought in through the Tamil Nadu Town and Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998 is a valid piece of legislation and not ultra vires. d) The facts recorded in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amending Act indicates matter of serious concern which requires earnest consideration to salvage in future such recurring situations affecting public right with resultant hazards of traffic, public health, security etc. e) To take effective measures, to check at the root level, at the very nascent stage and see that such situations do not recur.” 10. e) To take effective measures, to check at the root level, at the very nascent stage and see that such situations do not recur.” 10. The Government, in order to get over the effect of the said judgment, had brought forth Ordinance No.7/2000 by extending the time for regularization of all buildings constructed on or before 31.08.2000 by filing application for regularization on or before 30.10.2000 and the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India challenging the said amendment and later on withdrew it with liberty to challenge the same before this Court and accordingly, filed W.P. No. 18898/2000. In the said writ petition, CMDA gave an undertaking that the applications for regularization will be received but will not be processed. The Government of Tamil Nadu once again passed Tamil Nadu Act 7/2002 by extending time for regularization of unauthorized construction put up between 31.03.2002 and 30.06.2002 and made those dates as cut off dates for receipt of applications for regularization. The petitioner once again made a challenge to the said order by filing W.P. No. 24316/2002 before this Court and this Court, while granting interim orders, permitted the receipt and processing of applications but restrained the authorities from passing orders on such applications. Ultimately W.P. Nos. 18898 of 2000, 19998 of 2001, 24316/2002 and 17646/2006 along with connected miscellaneous petitions were taken up together for final disposal and a Division Bench of this Court, after referring to its earlier orders and the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has passed the following order: “32. In the result, in view of the foregoing discussion, we pass the following order:- (i) The amendments to Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 by Amending Acts 31/2000, 17/2001 and 7/2002 and the consequential amendments to the Application, Assessment and Collection of Regularisation Fee (Chennai Metropolitan Area) Rules, 1999 as far as applicable to the constructions made after 22.2.1999 are hereby declared ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. All order for regularization of such buildings (constructed after 28.2.99) passed pursuant to the amending provisions stand quashed. All order for regularization of such buildings (constructed after 28.2.99) passed pursuant to the amending provisions stand quashed. (ii) A Monitoring Committee is hereby constituted consisting of the following:- a) The Vice Chairman, CMDA; b) The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai; c) The Managing Director, Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board; d) The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board; e) The District Collector, Chennai; f) The Director of Fire Services; g) Mr. Louis Menezes (former Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai); h) Mr. M.G. Devasahayam (IAS retd.) (former Secretary, Housing and Urban Development); i) P.T. Krishnan, (Architect) j) Prof. Suresh Kuppuswamy, (School of Architecture and Planning, Anna University); k) Durganand Balsaver (Architect and Urban Planner); and l) Dr. A. Srivatsan (Architect and Urban Planner). iii) The monitoring committee shall be provided with sufficient staff and infrastructure and all files pertaining to illegal constructions to be placed before it. iv) The committee shall first take up the multi-storied commercial complexes for consideration. This should cover all buildings which are more than four floors in height. Where the construction of the entire building is illegal, the building has to be demolished. Where an extra floor has been put up illegally, the same should be demolished. Necessary modifications/ demolitions must be done for satisfying the norms for fire safety and car parking facilities within the building premises. v) Special buildings should be categorized as those with actual construction of ground plus three floors. In the case of commercial special buildings, the same measures that apply to multi-storied buildings as above should be followed. In the case of residential multi-storied buildings and special buildings, the monitoring committee may suggest less stringent measures, bearing in mind the impact of retaining the building. vi) The professional builders of illegal multi-storied and special buildings should be identified for imposition of heavy penalties. This amount should be used to compensate the unwary purchasers and to take remedial measures for alleviating the harm caused to the society. vii) The Committee shall identify the officers at the CMDA and the Corporation, who are responsible for the failure to enforce the planning laws and make appropriate recommendation for prosecution and/ or disciplinary action. viiii) The CMDA and the Corporation are directed to take action against the illegal multi-storied and special buildings, as per the recommendation of the Monitoring Committee. vii) The Committee shall identify the officers at the CMDA and the Corporation, who are responsible for the failure to enforce the planning laws and make appropriate recommendation for prosecution and/ or disciplinary action. viiii) The CMDA and the Corporation are directed to take action against the illegal multi-storied and special buildings, as per the recommendation of the Monitoring Committee. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai is directed to provide necessary police protection for taking action against illegal constructions. ix) To avoid future violations, buildings should be certified as having been constructed in compliance of planning permit and other applicable laws. The Certifying Officer will be personally responsible if any illegal building is certified. Electricity, water connection and occupation should be contingent on such certificate. In respect of the builders who have been identified by the Monitoring Committee as having put up illegal buildings, constructions by such builders should be certified for compliance only by the Chief Planner, who shall bear personal responsibility. x) The Chief Planner is directed to decide the applications for exemption pertaining to constructions prior to the cut-off date, i.e. 28.2.1999 and dispose of all the applications within a period of three months. It is needless to say that all the applications claiming exemption under the amended provisions of Section 113-A of the Act in respect of constructions made after 28.2.1999 shall stand dismissed and those applications shall not be entertained by the Government and/or the authority or officer authorised by the Government under Section 113-A of the Act. The Chief Secretary is directed to allot the hearing of appeals atleast to two officers in addition to the Housing the Urban Development Secretary. xi) Where claims are made that the unauthorized/deviated constructions were eligible for protection under the 1999 scheme- to determine the veracity of claims and evolve criteria for such identification which may include the following:- a) Date of planning permission and proof of completion; b) Electricity service connection and water connection; and c) Registration of sale deed conveying constructed area. xii) The Monitoring Committee shall be consulted for applications claiming exemption under Section 113-A of the Act as well as appeals under Section 113-A(6). The Monitoring Committee shall also be consulted for changes in the Master Plan and Development Control Rules, which affect construction activity in the city. xii) The Monitoring Committee shall be consulted for applications claiming exemption under Section 113-A of the Act as well as appeals under Section 113-A(6). The Monitoring Committee shall also be consulted for changes in the Master Plan and Development Control Rules, which affect construction activity in the city. xiii) The regularization fee collected should be kept aside in a separate fund and not to be merged with the general account of the State of Tamil Nadu or its Agencies and this fund shall be used to alleviate the sufferings of the affected citizens in consultation with the Monitoring Committee. xiv) The Corporation is directed to forthwith take steps to remove the encroachments on all busy streets like Ranganathan Street, Natesan street, Madley road, etc. and the Commissioner of Police is directed to provide adequate police force at the disposal of the Corporation for the purpose of carrying out work of removal of encroachments. xv) No Civil Court shall entertain any suit or proceedings or application in respect of the action taken by the CMDA or Corporation in respect of the illegal construction and encroachments on roads and pavements. All pending and future petitions filed/ to be filed against CMDA and the Corporation relating to the illegal and unauthorized construction of buildings and or encroachment, and the demolition notice shall be placed before the special bench to be nominated by the Chief Justice. 33. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.” The First Bench of this Court has allowed all the above writ petitions by a common order dated 23.08.2006 and it is reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483 . As already stated above SLP(c). Nos. 18679/2006 & 19254/2006 also been field challenging the legality and vires of the above said common order and it. was dismissed on 24.11.2006. 11. The State Government constituted a Monitoring Committee on 30.11.2006 vide G.O.Ms. No. 323, Housing and Urbal Development Department and the Committee made all endeavour and sincere efforts by calling for detailed information about violations and requested CMDA, Corporation of Chennai, to take immediate and appropriate action against the violators. was dismissed on 24.11.2006. 11. The State Government constituted a Monitoring Committee on 30.11.2006 vide G.O.Ms. No. 323, Housing and Urbal Development Department and the Committee made all endeavour and sincere efforts by calling for detailed information about violations and requested CMDA, Corporation of Chennai, to take immediate and appropriate action against the violators. However, the Government took a conscious decision to promulgate Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 1/2007, replacing Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1972 wherein it has been stated that notwithstanding any judgment or order in gross violation, no enforcement action could be taken in respect of violations put up till 02.6.2007 for a period of one year. 12. The petitioner herein once again made a challenge to the said Ordinance by filing W.P.No. 25913/2007 and this Court did not stay the entire operation of the Ordinance and the petitioner moved the Hon’ble Supreme Court and subsequently withdrew the same. This Court had allowed W.P.No. 25913/2007, vide order dated 13.11.2007, striking down Ordinance No. 1/2007 and directing the CMDA and Corportion of Chennai to resume implementation of the common order dated 23.08.2006 passed by the First Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483 , which was also confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by dismissing the Special Leave Petitions. 13. Subsequently, Ordinance No. 1/2007 was replaced by Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 2007 and it was put to challenge in W.P.No. 35560/2007 and it was allowed on 22.11.2007 striking down the Tamil Nadu Act 39/2007. The said order was put to challenge by the aggrieved persons before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which granted interim orders, ordering the authorities to maintain Status Quo on demolition of unauthorized constructions and pendency of the Special Leave Petitions, Ordinance No. 4/2008 came to be issued which extended the date of submission of applications till 25.07.2009 and again, it was challenged by these petitioners by filing W.P.No. 20765/2008 and it was dismissed on 25.08.2008 on the ground that since the matter has been seized up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the parties were at liberty to take steps in the said pending proceedings. The petitioner, challenging the dismissal of W.P.No. 20765/2008, has filed an SLP and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directed tagging of the said SLP along with connected SLPs. The petitioner, challenging the dismissal of W.P.No. 20765/2008, has filed an SLP and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directed tagging of the said SLP along with connected SLPs. It is further stated by the petitioner that second Master Plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area was notified on 02.09.2008 and it further relaxed many rules and in the interregnum, Ordinance No. 2/2009 was issued extending immunity for unauthorized constructions for further period of one year and it was replaced by Tamil Nadu Act No. 7 of 2010. 14. The petitioner, as usual, has filed W.P.No. 3885/2010, challenging the vires of Ordinance No. 2/2009 and after it became an Act, filed an application to amend the prayer and it was also allowed. The State Government has also filed its counter affidavit and this Court, vide order dated 28.06.2010, directed listing of the matter after disposal of the above SLPs. The Government of Tamil Nadu once again issued Ordinance No. 1/2010 on 27.07.2010 extending immunity for unauthorized constructions for further period of one year and it was put to challenge in W.P.Nos. 20618/2010 filed by the petitioner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has passed an order dated 15.03.2011 in SLP.No. 23098/2007, which was preferred against the order dated 13.11.2007 made in W.P.No. 25913/2007 and vacating the Status Quo order granted on 14.11.2007 and also made it clear that pendency of SLP will not come in the way of progress or disposal of any matter pending before this Court. 15. The writ petitions challenging the vires of 2009-2010 Acts wherein challenge was made for extension of cut off date came to be listed before this Court and this Court, vide order dated 12.08.2011, has directed CMDA, Corporation of Chennai and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) to file Action Taken Report within two weeks and it was filed on 12.10.2011. This Court after going through the report found that no serious steps have been taken to demolish unauthorized constructions and therefore, directed the Vice Chairman of CMDA, Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Managing Director of CMWSSB and chairman of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) to file separate affidavits stating clearly as to whether they had complied with the earlier directions passed by this Court and show cause as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for non-compliance of the above directions and adjourned the matter on 01.11.2011. on 01.11.2011 CMDA has reported that many unauthorized buildings were sealed and steps were taken to demolish them and it was also brought to the knowledge of the Court that XVI Assistant City Civil Court has granted interim orders in a Suit restraining the authorities and proceeding with them also. This Court directed CMDA to furnish the details with regard to the officers who have been posted from time to time during which illegal constructions came into being and also directed them to filed individual affidavits and further directed to give reasons as to why disciplinary action should not be recommended against them and it was adjourned by four weeks. 16. Ranganathan Street Merchants’ Association filed SLPs challenging the vires of the order dated 01.11.2011 on the ground that they have not been heard before passing the said order and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had disposed of the said SLP vide order dated 11.11.2011 and requested them to hear the concerned parties and thereafter to pass appropriate order. This Court had allowed the applications for impleadment filed by various authorities and the matter was adjourned to 21.12.2011 and in the meanwhile 3 interim applications in I.A.Nos. 4 to 6 in Civil Appeal Nos. 9704 to 9706/2011 were filed and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has requested this Court to dispose of the said applications on 21.12.2011. The petitioner would further state that on 21.12.2011, this Court has passed an order with the following directions: “(i) All building/shop owners whose premises have been locked and sealed by the Monitoring Committee shall submit requisite details before the Monitoring Committee with their request for de-sealing their premises. (ii) The Monitoring Committee shall examine such details on merits and in accordance with law as to whether construction of their building premises are legal and according to the sanctioned plan so that those premises may be de-sealed till the disposal of these cases, which have been fixed for disposal, as agreed, during the fourth week of January, 2012. (iii) The Monitoring Committee shall pass individual orders on such requests made for de-sealing as expeditiously as possible considering the observations made by the Supreme Court. (iii) The Monitoring Committee shall pass individual orders on such requests made for de-sealing as expeditiously as possible considering the observations made by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the writ petitions are adjourned on very many occasions and in the meanwhile, Section 113-C was inserted and rules and regulations were framed to give effect to various amendments/ insertions made to TCP Act in the form of above said Government Orders and the petitioners, by filing these writ petitions, made a challenge to the vires of Section 113-C as well as G.O.Ms.Nos. 234 and 235 dated 30.10.2012. 17. On behalf of the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urbal Development Department, namely, the third respondent in W.P.Nos. 16785 to 16787/2013, the Deputy Secretary to the Government had filed counter affidavits in these writ petitions stating that the insertion in the form of Section 113-C to TCP Act is a policy decision taken by the Government and unless there has been any patent illegality or constitutional vires or it is against the rule of law, the said insertion cannot be the subject matter of challenge. It is further stated in the counter affidavits that the validity of Section 113-A of the TCP Act was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decision in 2000 (7) SCC 425 (cited supra) and therefore, insertion of Section 113-C, which is also similar in nature, cannot be put to challenge. As regards the action taken to check and curb unauthorized/deviated constructions, it is stated that CMDA as well as the Corporation of Chennai are doing their level best to curb and check unauthorized/deviated constructions and the Government also took a strict view of the situation and taking into consideration of the same, had constituted a Committee headed by Hon’ble Thiru Justice Mohan, retired Judge, Supreme Court of India, by issuing G.O.Ms. No. 190, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 01.06.2007 and the said committee comprising of (1) Vice Chairperson CMDA, (2) Dean, MEASI Academy, New College, Chennai, formerly President of the Institute of town Planners, India, (3) Additional Director of Town and Country Planning (Retired), Professor and Head of the Division (Retired), Urban Systems Engineering Divisions, Anna University, Chennai, (4) Chief Planner, CMDA and Additional Director of Town and Country Planning and (5) Director of Town and Country Planning, who acted as Principal Secretary had gone into the entire issue in a threadbare manner and suggested suitable measures and in pursuance to the said recommendation, Section 113-C came to be introduced by means of Ordinance No. 6/2012 on 16.07.2012. The said Ordinance was the result of due deliberations with technical and non-technical authorities and on careful consideration. 18. The Housing and Urban Development Department also took a stand in the counteraffidavits that the writ petitioner themselves admitted that half of the city’s buildings violate town planning and in such a scenario, it is neither feasible nor desirable on the part of the State Government/concerned authorities to demolish such large number of buildings as it will result in undue hardship to the owners and occupants of those buildings and made a very fair admission that “when the Government and other statutory functionaries somehow failed to achieve the planned development to the extent, then the legislature and to intervene to bring the amendment in the form of Section 113-C.” The rules and guidelines in the above cited Government order were the result of technical and scientific studies and it cannot be faulted with and would reiterate that the object underlying the enactment of Section 113-C is to remove inequalities and to provide relief to aggrieved parties and as such, it is in the nature of beneficial provision and therefore, it is impermissible by judicial interpretation of new words, which are not there and thereby, restricted the scope of the said provision and therefore, Housing and Urban Development Department prayed for dismissal of there writ petitions. 19. Mr. T. Sundaravadanam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No. 1664/2013 and Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.Nos. 16785 to 16787/2013 have vehemently contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in 2000 (7) SCC 425 (cited supra) wherein the petitioner in W.P.Nos. 19. Mr. T. Sundaravadanam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No. 1664/2013 and Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.Nos. 16785 to 16787/2013 have vehemently contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in 2000 (7) SCC 425 (cited supra) wherein the petitioner in W.P.Nos. 16785 to 16787/2013 made a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 113-C of the TCP Act and also validity of the orders granting exemption by the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the above cited decision, in more than one place, has expressed grave concern with regard to unregulated developments and unauthorized constructions violating the provisions of the Town Planning legislation and observed that this mess is the creating out of the inefficiency, callousness and the failure of the statutory functionaries to perform their obligation under the Act and before such pattern becomes cancerous and spreads all parts of this country, it is high time that remedial measure was taken by the State to check this pattern and further observed that unless the administration is toned up, the persons entrusted to implement the scheme of the Act are made answerable to the laches on their failure to perform their statutory obligations, it would continue to result with wrongful gains to the violators of the law at the cost of the public and instead of development bring back into the hazards of pollution, disorderly traffic, security risks etc., and such a pattern retards development, jeopardizes all purposeful plans. It is vehemently contended by Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel that in para 38 of the above cited judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the waiver of requirements of side setback will deprive adjacent buildings and their occupants of light and air and also make it impossible for a fire engine to be used to fight a fire in a high-rise building and the violation of floor space index will result in undue strain on the civic amenities and would seriously endanger the occupants resulting in the building becoming a veritable death trap and the waiver of car parking and abutting road width requirements would inevitably lead to congestion on public roads causing severe inconvenience to the public at large and such grant of exemption on the regularization is likely to spell ruin as it affects the lives, health, safety and convenience of all its citizens. 20. It is the further submission of Mr. T. Mohan, learned counsel that the rules and guidelines in the form of impugned Government Orders have not addressed the said issue and the concern expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited paras and given a complete go-by to setback violations. Fir safety norms and also provision of car parking facilities and the said orders, on the face of it, are in gross violation of the above cited order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 21. Insofar as the challenge made to vires of Section 113-C, which has been inserted in TCP Act, it is submitted by Mr. T. Mohan, learned counsel that no doubt, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited decision held that it is within the competence of the State Legislature to legislate based on its policy decision and however, chosen to observe that the violations are matter of grave concern and unless check at the nascent stage is made, for which it is for the state to consider what administrative scheme is to be evolved, it may be difficult to control this progressive illegality and left to the notice of the State Government to do the needful for salvaging the cities and country from the wrath of these illegal colonies and constructions. It is the submission of Mr. It is the submission of Mr. T. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited decision upheld the said provision, expressed it’s grave concern as to the unauthorized development/illegal constructions and left it to the State Government to do the needful for salvaging the cities and country from the wrath of these illegal colonies and construction. The State Government, instead of taking remedial and preventive action, has brought forth Section 113-C and consequently two Government Orders by and under which illegalities that are taking place with regard to urban development will continue to perpetuate and in future, they may bring more ordinance/acts to extend the cut off dates to regularize such type of unauthorized and illegal constructions. 22. It is also the forceful submission of the respective learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners that public interest has been given a complete go-by and the State Government, which is supposed to be the guardian of law, by inserting section 113-C and issuing consequential Government Orders, had chosen to punish the public and rewarding the violators and in fact encouraging the violators to commit more violations and illegalities. Mr. T. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered in Consumer Action Group and Others V. State of Tamil Nadu and Others [ 2006 (4) CTC 483 ] and would submit that in a batch of writ petitions amendment made to Section 113-A of TCP Act were put to challenge and this Court had quashed the said amendment so far as it applies to constructions made after 28.02.1999 and also to quash the regularization granted to such buildings and further constituted a Monitoring Committee and given series of instructions [extracted in para 10 above] and challenge made to the said order by filling SLP. ( C). Nos. 18679/2006 and 19254/2006 were also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, vide common order dated 24.11.2006 and insertion of Section 113-c is nothing but old wine in a new bottle and since the above cited judgment is also an inter party judgment, binds both party to the litigations and on that ground also, it is not open to the State Government to insert Section 113-C and issue consequential Government Orders. 23. Mr. 23. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Advocate General appearing for the official respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment reported in 2000 (7) SCC 425 (Cited supra) and contended that validity of section 113A of the TCP Act has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and it is not a one time measure and subsequently, the Government has passed order in G.O.Ms.No. 190, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 01.06.2007, constituting a Committee headed by Hon’ble Mr. justice s. Mohan (Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India) and the said committee comprises of (1) Vice Chairperson CMDA, (2) Dean, MEAST Academy, new College, Chennai, formerly president of the Institute of Town planners, India, (3) Additional Director of Town and Country planning (Retired), Professor and Head of the Division (Retired), Urban Systems Engineering Division, Anna University, Chennai, (4) Chief Planner, CMDA and Additional Director of Town and Country planning and (5) Director of Town and Country planning, who acted as Principal Secretaty to suggest amendments to TCP Act for various departments of special nature requiring changes in the policy framework which have been emerging in order to provide for better regulation of development activities and to pave the way for standard structure, the Committee was directed to consider and give appropriate suggestions/guidelines to modify the existing provisions/to make provisions for new aspects of development and the said Committee, after 33 sittings, has submitted a detailed report suggesting amendments to TCP Act and before inserting/adding Section 113-C, the said report was taken into consideration by the Government and after due deliberation and proper application of mind only, the amendments/insertion came to be made and therefore, it cannot be stated that the said amendment has not nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is the further submission of the learned Advocate General that application of Section 113-C is subject to stringent conditions and no car parking has been given and penalty fixed would act as a deterrent measure and the amount to be imposed as penalty has been linked to guideline value Value of the property. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate General that there cannot be any presumption against legislature to enact a law and the basis for exemption in the form of Section 113-C, rules/guidelines in the impugned Government Order are in consonance with the above said Committee’s recommendation. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate General that there cannot be any presumption against legislature to enact a law and the basis for exemption in the form of Section 113-C, rules/guidelines in the impugned Government Order are in consonance with the above said Committee’s recommendation. The learned Advocate General, in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon the following judgments: (i) Consumer Action Group and Another v. State of T.N and Others [ AIR 2000 SC 3060 = (2000) 7 SCC 425 ] (ii) Bakhtawar Trust and Others v. M.D.Narayan and Others [ AIR 2003 SC 2236 ] (iii) State of A.P. and Others v. Mcdoweel & Co. and Another [ (1996) 3 SCC 709 ] (iv) Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India [ (2008) 6 SCC 1 ] (v) State of Bihar v. Bhar Distillary Ltd., [(1997)] 2 SCC 453] 24. Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in response to the submissions made by the learned Advocate General, made a vehement and forceful submission that fixation of cut off date is arbitrary and on that basis cut off date is fixed, still remains as a mystery. It is the further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that amendment/insertion in the form of section 113-C is only capable of misuse and it not only encourages the violators, but that perpetuate their illegal activities and the State Government did not give any assurance that the cut off date will not be extended further. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that once validity of Section 113-C, rules and regulations have been upheld, the State Government will go on introducing amendments to said sections by periodically extending the cut off dates and their real intention is not to punish the violators but only to help them to achieve their illegal object and the State Government, being the guardian of law and protector of public interest, cannot expected to do so. It is also contended that Sections 113-A and 113-C are not in conformity with Development control Rules and there has been a compromise with regard to fire safety, land use and car parking and the guidelines/rules are beyond the scope of Section 113-C. The Government, by passing the above said two Government Orders challenging important functions of overseeing/regulating unauthorized constructions, has left to the discretion of the concerned authorities and as already expected, but for their callousness and inaction, such a mushroom growth of unauthorized constructions all over the State would not have happened. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, placed reliance upon the following judgments: (i) Consumer Action Group and another v. State of T.N and Others [ (2000) 7 SCC 425 ] (ii) Consumer Action Group and Others v. State of T.N and Others [ (2006) 4 CTC 483 ] (iii) Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., v. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 434] (iv) M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Others [ (2006) 3 SCC 399 ] 25. This Court heard the submissions of the learned standing Counsel for CMDA and Corporation of Chennai, who adopted the submissions of the learned Advocate General. 26. The following questions arise for consideration: (a) Whether Section 113-C of the Town and country planning (Amendment) Act, 2012 is ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? (b) G.O.Ms.Nos. 234 and 235, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 30.10.2012 by amending the Principal Act and inserting the provisions in the form of section 113-C in TCP ACT satisfy the reasonableness and the object sought to be achieved with regard to unauthorized developments? 27. This Court, before proceeding to analyze the facts of the case, is referring to some of the judgments. 28. In Consumer Action Group and another v. State of T.N. and Others [ (2000) 7 SCC 425 ], writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India came to be filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 113-C of the TCP Act. 28. In Consumer Action Group and another v. State of T.N. and Others [ (2000) 7 SCC 425 ], writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India came to be filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 113-C of the TCP Act. It was contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the impunity with which, the executive power of the State of Tamil Nadu is being exercised indiscriminately in granting exemptions to the violators, violating every conceivable control, check including approved plan, in violation of the public policy as laid down under the TCP Act and the Development Control Rules and it is against public interest, safety, health and the environment and such a discriminate exercise of powers would certainly result in threat of water, electricity, choked roads and ecological and environmental imbalances. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on an elaborate and exhaustive consideration of the facts and legal position, found that under Section 113-A, hardly indiscretion is left and on going through the Statements of Objects and Reasons for bringing Section 113-A, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held Section 113-A as a one time measure and is a valid piece of legislation and challenge to its validity has no merit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has expressed grave concern and found that from the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing Section 113-A, there exist an administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency, and laxity on the part of the authorities concerned which led to mushrooming growth of unauthorized construction which have been put up in violation of Development Control Rules and half of the city buildings are unauthorized, violating the town planning Legislation and the mess is the creation out of the inefficiency, callousness and the failure of the statutory functionaries to perform their obligation under the Act and before such pattern becomes cancerous and spreads all parts of this country, it is high time that remedial measure was taken by the State to check this pattern and further observed that unless the administration is toned up, the persons entrusted to implement the scheme of the Act are made answerable to the laches on their failure to perform their statutory obligations, it would continue to result with wrongful gains to the violators of the law at the cost of the public and instead of development bring back into the hazards of pollution , disorderly traffic, security risks etc., and such a pattern retards development, jeopardizes all purposeful plans of any city, and liquidates the expenditure incurred in such development process. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has gone in to the validity of grant of exemption under Section 113-A by collecting regularization fees and held that it cannot said to be invalid as it is within the competence of the State Legislature to Legislate based on its policy decision. However, the Hon’ble supreme Court of India noted its grave concern that unless check at the nascent stage is made, for which it is for the State to consider what administrative scheme is to be evolved, it may be difficult to control this progressive illegality and the State must effectively not to permit such situation to develop in the wider interest of the public at large. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also observed that when there is any provision to make illegal construction valid on the ground of limitation, then it must mean that the statutory authority in spite of knowledge has not taken any action and left it to the State Government to do the needful for salvaging the cities and country from the wrath of illegal colonies and construction. Ultimately, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited decision concluded it by saying that Section 113 of the TCP Act is valid and Section 113-A as a one time measure brought into Tamil Nadu Town and planning (Amendment) Act, 1998 is a valid piece of legislation and not ultra vires. 29. The Government, having tasted success, has brought forth Tamil Nadu Town and Country planning Ordinance No.7/2000 by which section 113-A was further amended whereby all buildings constructed before 31.08.2000 were made eligible to be considered for such regularization on payment of reduced regularization fees. Thereafter Ordinance No.5/2001 (Tamil Nadu Act 17/2001) was promulgated extending the cut off date for regularization of authorized constructions up to 31.07.2001 and by another amendment Act No.7/2002 it was extended to 31.07.2002 and the said amendments were put to challenge by Consumer Action Group by filing W.P.No. 18898/2000 etc., batch and the First Bench of this Court, having taken into consideration the consumer Action Group case reported in [ (2000) 7 SCC 425 } (cited supra), found that it was a one time measure and the frequent amendments effected to Section 113A suggest that the Government expects to check and curb unplanned development only by imposing fees. The power of exemption cannot operate to destroy the substantive provisions of the statute and these exemption clauses can be applied only to remove excessive and genuine hardship and not to virtually allow the builders a free hand in violating the rules which are enacted in the interest of the community and for the orderly development of the city. The First Bench of this Court further observed that they were unable to find either in the exempting provision or in the method of its application, any discernible reason as to why the exemption should be granted in favour of the violators and all violations are grouped together and Rules only provide for different categorization for differential pricing only and the impugned amendments to Section are thus in gross violation of Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as they arbitrarily affect the constitutional guarantee of ensuring a decent and planned development. The First Bench of this Court also noted the above cited decision that both CMDA and Corporation of Chennai submitted elaborate chart to show that the provisions of TCP Act and rules have been grossly violated by the violators and the buildings have been constructed in total violation of rules and all the safety aspects have been compromised and caused a serious view of the matter that there is no necessity for issuing notice for the removal and demolition of the encroachment in public streets and roads and as such encroachment should be liable to be removed forthwith and so also the electricity connection or sewerage connection. The First Bench of this Court has also appointed a Monitoring Committee headed by the Vice Chairperson of CMDA and other officials to oversee the demolition of unauthorized constructions put up in violation of planning permit, master plan, CRZ and other laws. 30. SLP (C ). Nos. 18679/2006 and 19254/2006 were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India challenging the vires of the above said order reported in Consumer Action Group and Others v. State of T.N. and others [ 2006 (4) CTC 483 ] and both SLPS were dismissed on 24.11.2006 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 31. Subsequently, Tamil Nadu Ordinance No. 1/2007 was issued and it was challenged in W.P. Nos. 25913/2007 and the First bench of this Court has allowed the writ petition and declared that Ordinance No. 1/2007 is repugnant to the Constitution and quashed the said amendment and the CMDA and Corporation of Chennai are directed to implement the order reported in [ 2006 (4) CTC 483 ]. CMDA preferred SLP. No. 23098/2007, challenging the legality of the order dated 13.11.2007 made in w.p.No. 25913/2007 and so also other connected SLPs and initially interim order was granted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, vide order dated 14.12.2007, has taken into consideration the submissions made that the recommendation made by Justice Mohan Committee is pending with the legislative department and taking into consideration of the said submission, has vacated the order of Status quo and also made it clear that the pendency of the above said SLP will not come in the way of progress or disposal of the matter pending before the High Court. As already stated above, the Committee headed by Hon’ble Mr. As already stated above, the Committee headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.Mohan (Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India) suggested amendments to TCP Act, based on which Section 113-C as well as the rules and guidelines in the form of two Government Orders came to be passed. 32. Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.1/2010 dated 27.07.2010 was put to challenge in W.P.No. 20618/2010 and W.P.Nos. 3885/2010 and 23936/2010 were filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to remove unauthorized construction put up in a particular place and all writ petitions were entertained by the First Bench of this Court and it passed the following interim orders in the above said writ petitions: 02.08.2011: CMDA and Corporation of Chennai were directed to submit Status Report as to the demolition of unauthorized constructions and also steps taken for disconnecting electricity connection and water supply. 12.08.2011: Status Report perused and that more than 100 unauthorized constructions are in existence in T.Nagar area alone and not a single building has been razed to the ground and similarly, in other places more than 1000 buildings unauthorisedly constructed are still in existence and therefore, directed to comply with the order reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483 . 01.11.2011; The Court, after going through the detailed list of officers from time to time posted during which unauthorized constructions took place, had ordered their impleadment and directed them to filed affidavit justifying their inaction. 21.12.2011; (1) All building/shop owners whose premises have been locked and sealed by the Monitoring Committee shall submit requisite details before the Monitoring Committee with their request for the de-sealing their premises. (2) The Monitoring Committee shall examine such details on merits and in accordance with law as to whether construction of their building premises are legal and according to the sanctioned plan so that those premises may be de-sealed till the disposal of these cases, which have been fixed for disposal, as agreed, during the fourth week of January 2012. (3) The Monitoring Committee shall pass individual orders on such requests made for de-sealing the expeditiously as possible considering the observation made by the Supreme Court. 23.01.2012; Extension of time was granted to file counter. 16.07.2012; The impugned ordinance No.6/2012 came to be passed inserting Section 113-C and on 30.10.2012, G.O.Ms.Nos.234 and 235 came to be passed prescribing guidelines and rules with regard to Section 113-C. 33. 23.01.2012; Extension of time was granted to file counter. 16.07.2012; The impugned ordinance No.6/2012 came to be passed inserting Section 113-C and on 30.10.2012, G.O.Ms.Nos.234 and 235 came to be passed prescribing guidelines and rules with regard to Section 113-C. 33. The main plank of submission made by the respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Consumer Action Group case reported in 2000 (7) SCC 425 (cites supra) upheld section 113-C as a valid piece of legislation and that Section 113-A as a one time measure brought in to the TCP Act and nothing disconcern of enormous violations that took place which led to the mushrooming growth of unauthorized and illegal constructions, has directed the State Government to look Into the issue with all seriousness and take remedial measures for salvaging the cities and country from the wrath of illegal colonies and constructions. 34. It is further contended that the State Government had also mistook as if that they can bring any number of amendments by extending the cut off dates by introducing series of ordinances which later on become amendments/Acts and the amendments, namely, Tamil Nadu Acts 17/2001 and 7/2002 were put to challenge and the First Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483 (cited Supra) had quashed all the said amendments and SLP.(C). 483 (cited supra) had quashed all the said amendments and SLP.(C). Nos. 18679/2006 and 19254/2006, challenging the vires of the said order were also dismissed. The State Government, inspite of quashment of the above said ordinances wherein extension of cut off date for making applications for regularization came to be made, was bent upon helping the violators by introducing Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.1/2007 and it was once again put to challenge in W.P. No. 25913/2007 and it was allowed and SLPs were preferred and initially Status Quo was granted and subsequently it was vacated on the representation that the recommendations made by Justice Mohan Committee is pending before the legislature. Once again Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.1/2007 dated 27.07.2007 was put to challenge in W.P.No. 20618/2010 etc., batch and its Court passed series of orders as stated in the earlier paragraphs directing the concerned authorities to take immediate follow up action. 35. Once again Tamil Nadu Ordinance No.1/2007 dated 27.07.2007 was put to challenge in W.P.No. 20618/2010 etc., batch and its Court passed series of orders as stated in the earlier paragraphs directing the concerned authorities to take immediate follow up action. 35. The Government, based on the recommendations made by Justice Mohan Committee, has introduced the amendment in the form of Section 113-C and it is relevant to extract the same: “113-C. Exemption in respect of development of certain buildings.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the Government may, taking into consideration the ecology and environment of the area and having regard to public interest and in order to improve the infrastructure, reduce public inconvenience and ensure public safety in the area, by order, exempt any building or class of buildings developed on or before the 1st day of July 2007, from all or any of the provisions of this Act or any rule made in this behalf, by collecting such amount, not exceeding three times of the guideline value of the land, as may be prescribed. Different rates may be prescribed for different planning parameters and for different parts of the planning area.” 36. The earlier amendments were struck down primarily for the reason that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Consumer Action Group case reported in 2000 (7) SCC 425 held that Section 113-C is a one time measure and is a valid piece of legislation and not ultra vires. 37. It is well settled position of law that legislature cannot by bare declaration, without anything more, directly overrule, reverse or override a judicial decision. However, it can in exercise of plenary powers conferred upon it by Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution of India, render a judicial decision ineffective by enacting a valid law fundamentally altering or changing the conditions on which such a decision is based. 38. However, it can in exercise of plenary powers conferred upon it by Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution of India, render a judicial decision ineffective by enacting a valid law fundamentally altering or changing the conditions on which such a decision is based. 38. It is also a trite law that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of any enactment spells out the core reason for which the enactment is brought and it can be looked into for appreciating the true intent of the legislature or to find out the object sought to be achieved by enactment of the particular Act or even for judging the reasonableness of the classification made by such Act (See State of T.N. v. K. Shyam Sunder (2011) 6 MLJ 43). 39. No doubt, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in 2000 (7) SCC 425 held that Section 113-A is a one time measure brought in through the Tamil Nadu Town and Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998 is a valid piece of legislation and not ultra vires, but at the same time held that Section 113 of the TCP Act is valid and the Preamble, Objects and Reasons and various provisions of the Act give a clear cut policy and guidelines to the Government to exercise its powers. In para 38 of the above cited judgment, the waiver requirements regarding side setback, FSI, fire safety and car parking by collecting regularization fees under Section 113-A, cannot held to be invalid as it is within the competence of the State Legislature to legislate based on its policy decision, but it is a matter of concern and therefore, left it to the State Government to do the needful. 40. Subsequent amendment Acts extending the cut off date were put to challenge in W.P.Nos. 18898/2000 etc., batch before the First Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483 . The First Bench of this Court has quashed the said amendment and two SLPs preferred against the said common order, has also ended in limine dismissal. Subsequent amendment Acts extending the cut off date were put to challenge in W.P.Nos. 18898/2000 etc., batch before the First Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2006 (4) CTC 483 . The First Bench of this Court has quashed the said amendment and two SLPs preferred against the said common order, has also ended in limine dismissal. Since the Consumer Action Group case reported in 2000 (7) SCC 425 , came to be rendered in writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the very same issues involved in these writ petitions were also considered and adjudicated in the above cited decision wherein validity of Sections 113 and 113-A came to be upheld, this Court is of the considered view that the State Government is having competence to put insert/introduce Section 113C. 41. No doubt, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a series of decisions in Esha Ekta Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and Others [ (2013) 5 SCC 357 ] and Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation [(2013) 5 SCC 386] had frowned upon the inaction on the part of the authorities to prevent mushrooming growth of unauthorized constructions and has come down very heavily in respect of violations. In fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Consumer Action Group case (cited supra) have also noted it with grave concern and left it to the notice of the State Government to do the needful, but the fact remains that 13 years had elapsed from the date of the said decision and the State Government and the concerned authorities have failed to take any effective and sincere steps to avoid such a kind of nuisance and merely extended the cut off date for regularization of unauthorized constructions stating that illegal constructions have come up in such a large scale and it is virtually impossible for them to resort to demolition and instead by collecting hefty regularization fee and fulfillment of other conditions, they will regularize unauthorized constructions. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture that the State Government, in its counter, has failed to come out with any specific statement as to the steps taken to demolish constructions came after 01.07.2007; but the fact remains that such unauthorized constructions are taking place day in and day out not only in the Chennai city but throughout the State and as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a catena of decisions, it is high time that the State Government and the concerned statutory authorities shall realize their duties and responsibilities owe to their citizens and come out with some concrete, definite and stringent measures to nib it in the bud itself. 42. There is a saying “Prevention is better than cure” and as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Consumer Action Group case (cited supra), this Court hopes and trust that at least from now on, the concerned authorities will realize their responsibilities and act fairly and judiciously to gain public confidence for the reason that the present inaction leads to the inference that the violators and person indulging in unlawful activities such as unauthorized constructions are getting encouraged. If such a kind of situation is allowed to continue, it may lead to anarchy and catroscophic consequences, which will not definitely augur well for the State. 43. There is presumption that Legislature does not exceed its jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing that the Act is not within the competence of the Legislature, or that it has transgressed other constitutional mandates, such as those relating to fundamental rights, is always on the person who challenges its vires. [see Chiranjital Chowdhury v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41 ]. The principle is, however subject to the exception that once the citizen is able to establish that the impugned legislature has invaded his fundamental rights under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution, the State must satisfy that the law is saved under Clause (6) of the same Article. [see Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 925 ]. 44. Let this Court test the vires of the Government Orders in G.O.Ms. Nos. 234 and 235, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 30.10.2012, namely, the third respondent in the light of the above said principle. 45. [see Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 925 ]. 44. Let this Court test the vires of the Government Orders in G.O.Ms. Nos. 234 and 235, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 30.10.2012, namely, the third respondent in the light of the above said principle. 45. According to the official respondents, the following are the salient feature of the recommendations made by Justice S.Mohan Committee, appointed vide G.O.Ms.No. 190, Housing and Urban Development dated 01.06.2007: Provision for creation of Urban Developed Authorities or Metropolitan Development Authorities (necessary for larger Cities like Coimbatore, Madurai, Trichy etc., ) in the Act. Provision for transfer of Development rights. Reconstruction of the Town and Country Planning Board with proper representations. Provision for land pooling Area Development Scheme. Specific provision for acquisition of land for public purpose which may get released under the limitation class from the approved Master Plans, DDP reservations. Reservation for Economically Weaker Section Housing. Time limit for issue of planning permission and provision for deemed approval. Provision for enforcement measure such as seizure of construction materials, machineries, vehicles etc., from the construction premises. Provision for action against unauthorized developers on conviction punishable with imprisonment from three months to three years with fine from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Provision for making not only the owners, but also the Builders/Promoters, Architects, Licensed Surveyors, jointly or severally responsible for unauthorized developments. Provision of constitution of different communities. Provision of exemption for violated Buildings on or before 01.07.2007 subject to specific guidelines made relating to Fire, Structural Safety, Floor Space Index, Parking and Collection of penal fee as may be decided by the Government. Proposed guidelines include floor space index space exemption upto 50% road, with exemption upto 20%, parking to be provided within a distance of 250 mtrs., Directorate of Fire and Rescue Services Certification, Compliance of Coastal Regulation zone Regulation and Lower Penalty for ordinary Buildings. 46. Proposed guidelines include floor space index space exemption upto 50% road, with exemption upto 20%, parking to be provided within a distance of 250 mtrs., Directorate of Fire and Rescue Services Certification, Compliance of Coastal Regulation zone Regulation and Lower Penalty for ordinary Buildings. 46. The following guidelines were also issued under Section 113-C of the TCP Act: (i) Building should have been completed on or before 1st July, 2007; (ii) Adequate measures for lighting and ventilations (either natural or mechanical) should have been taken and a certificate from the local body to that effect shall be produced; (iii) Adequate fire safety measures should have been taken to the satisfaction of the Directorate of Fire and Rescue Service and a certificate to that effect shall be produced from the Directorate; (iv) the building shall be structurally sound and a certificate to that effect from a qualified structural engineer shall be produced; (v) Parking as per standards prescribed in the development control rules shall be made available within the premises under reference or in the vicinity not exceeding a distance of 250 meters from the site under reference exclusively ear-marking such parking spaces for the building under consideration; should such a parking space be provided in the vicinity, the said parking lots shall be either owned or in enjoyment under lease for a continuous period of not less than 30 years; (vi) Floor space index shall not exceed 50% of the allowable limit; (vii) Extent of violation in respect of minimum required road width shall not exceed 20%; (viii) Any activity in the building shall be in conformity with the land use zoning as specified in the development control rules. (ix) No hazardous activity or industry in a zone other than special and hazardous use zone be considered for any exemption under this Section 113-C of the Act; (x) The building shall be in conformity with the following: (a) The Civil Aviation Regulation of the Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation under the Air Craft Act, 1934 (Central Act XXII of 1934); (b) The Ministry of Defence Regulation for development in the vicinity of the Air Port stations within 900 meters around; (c) The Regulations of the Central Regional Advisory Committee constituted by the Ministry of Communication; (d) The Coastal zone Regulations of the Ministry of Environment and Forest under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (Central Act 17 of 1986); (xi) For any industrial development other than cottage industry, clearance of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board shall be produced; (xii) Penalty for the violated floor area shall be paid to the planning authority at the rate, which shall be in proportion to guideline value as prevalent in the date of application, which may be notified by the Government in the official Gazette. For ordinary residential buildings not exceeding 300 square meters, the Government may Consider levy of penalty not exceeding 50% of the penalty levied for other categories of building. (xiii) The penalty collected shall be kept in an escrow account to be utilized only for provision or improvement of infrastructure in the area to reduce public inconvenience, if any caused by unauthorized or deviated developments; (xiv) While according exemption under the Section 113-C of the Act, the Government may impose such further restrictions and conditions as may be necessary to reduce public inconvenience or for furtherance of the objects of the Act, ecology and environment and having regard to public interest or for any other objective. The applicant of the occupier or a person who has right or interest over the property shall comply with the same. Such a conditional exemption shall become revocable at any point of time by the Government, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the applicant or the occupier or a person who has right or interest over the property to explain the failure to comply with such a condition, in part or full. Such a conditional exemption shall become revocable at any point of time by the Government, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the applicant or the occupier or a person who has right or interest over the property to explain the failure to comply with such a condition, in part or full. If the explanation, is not satisfactory, exemption shall be liable to be revoked thereupon such development shall be deemed to be unauthorized, attracting the relevant sections under the Act for any enforcement action against it; (xv) The following developments shall not be considered for exemption under the section 118-C of the Act: (a) A building with any encroachment, including aerial encroachment, on to a public road or street or any land belonging to the Government such as poromboke etc. (b) Developments in the Acquifer Recharge Area restricted for development; (c) Development in the Red Hills Catchments Area restricted for development. 47. As observed by the Hon’ble Justice Mohan Committee, Floor Space Index (FSI) parameter has its impact on the density of the population of the City or a locality and its concentration relates to very high density and similarly, minimum road width is prescribed as criteria to encourage higher order developments along wider roads and discourage or prohibits such developments along wider roads and discourage or prohibits such developments along narrow roads and it adequate parking is provided, the impact of developments on the road, is minimized. 48. 48. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para 38 of its judgment in Consumer Action Group case [ 2000 (7) SCC 425 ] has noted the possible consequence of grant of such exemption under Section 113-A by collecting regularization fees especially with regard to the waiver of requirements of side setback, which will deprive adjacent buildings and their occupants of light and air and also make it impossible for a fire engine to be used to fight fire in a high-rise building and violation of floor space index will result in undue strain on the civil amenities such as water, electricity, sewerage collection and disposal and waiver of requirements regarding fire staircase and other fire prevention and fire-fighting measures would seriously endanger the occupants resulting in the building becoming a veritable death trap and the waiver of car parking and abutting road width requirements would inevitably lead to congestion on public roads causing server inconvenience to the public at large and such grant of exemption and the regularization is likely to spell ruin for any city as it affects the lives, health, safety and convenience of all its citizens. No doubt, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited decision held that section 113-A cannot be held to be invalid as it is within the competence of the State Legislature to legislate based on its policy decision, however cautioned the State Government as to the Consequences on account of such kind of developments and therefore, directed the State Government to take effective measures to check at the nascent stage and that such a situation do not occur. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the subsequent decisions in Esha Ekta Apartment Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and Others [ (2013) 5 SCC 357 ] and Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municpal Corporation [(2013) 5 SCC 386] not only ordered demolition but also directed the violators to pay hefty costs for major violation of sanctioned plan. 49. In G.O.Ms.No. 234 dated 30.10.2012, guidelines have been issued for the exemption of buildings and assessment and collection of amounts for exemption as per Rule No.4 and it is relevant to note some of the guidelines in Rule No.4: “4…. 49. In G.O.Ms.No. 234 dated 30.10.2012, guidelines have been issued for the exemption of buildings and assessment and collection of amounts for exemption as per Rule No.4 and it is relevant to note some of the guidelines in Rule No.4: “4…. (ii) No building with any encroachment including aerial encroachment on to a public road or street or on a poramboke land or on local authority lands, open space and recreational areas, water bodies and land affected by the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978) shall be considered for exemption; …… (vi) Extent of violation in respect of minimum required and width shall not exceed 20%; (vii( Violation in respect of required minimum setback space shall not exceed 50%; (viii) Floor Space Index shall not exceed 50% of the allowable limit; Similarly G.O.Ms. No. 235 dated 30.10.2012 speaks about Tamil Nadu Assessment and collection of amount for exemption of Buildings Rules, 2012 r/w. Section 113-C of the TCP Act. 50. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that while framing the guidelines under G.O.Ms.No.234, especially with regard to fire safety and traffic, amendment on account of parking of private vehicles on public roads i.e., parking in the vicinity not exceeding a distances of 250 meters from the site, relevant Statutes governing electricity and water supply and the relevant guideline given therein have not at all been taken into consideration and the purpose of Development Control Rules was also not considered. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.234, overrule/given a go-by to the provisions of other Statutes and it being in the nature of administrative guidelines/instructions, cannot override the express provisions of other statutes. 51. A perusal of the recommendations/suggestions made by Justice Mohan Committee would disclose that material and relevant aspects and impact of other Statutes have not been taken into consideration. The object of TCP Act is to provide for planning the development and use of rural and urban land in the State of Tamil Nadu and for purposes connected therewith. 51. A perusal of the recommendations/suggestions made by Justice Mohan Committee would disclose that material and relevant aspects and impact of other Statutes have not been taken into consideration. The object of TCP Act is to provide for planning the development and use of rural and urban land in the State of Tamil Nadu and for purposes connected therewith. Since the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.234, among other things, speak that the extent of violation in respect of minimum required road width shall not exceed 20% [Rule No.4 (vi)] and violation in respect of minimum setback spaces shall not exceed 50% [Rule 4 (vii) and Floor Space index shall not exceed 50% of the allowable limit [Rule No.4 (viii)] and any activity in the building shall be in conformity with the land use zoning [Rule No.4(ix)], more scientific and analytical study should have been done in respect of user of lands not only in the City of Chennai, but throughout Tamil Nadu, as TCP Act covers within its ambit planning the development and use of rural and urban lands. That apart, the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.234, in all probability, contravene the relevant requirements prescribed in other statutes, rules and regulations and the said aspect has also not been taken not of by the said Committee. 52. It is very pertinent to point out at this juncture that in the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.234, Guideline No.2(c) prescribes competent authority and the applications have to be processed by them and appeal thereafter is also provided to them under Guideline No.6 Considering the magnitude of the violation noted, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Consumer Action Group case [ (2000) 7 SCC 425 ] observed that it is virtually impossible for the competent authority to process all the applications, which may run to lakhs and in case of appeals also the same will be the position. 53. In the year 2000, when the above cited judgment reported in (2000) 7 SCC 425 was delivered, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken into consideration the Statement of objects and Reasons for introducing Section 113-A and as per the said Statement of objects and Reasons, a rough estimate of about 3 lakh building approximately were unauthorisedly developed. 53. In the year 2000, when the above cited judgment reported in (2000) 7 SCC 425 was delivered, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken into consideration the Statement of objects and Reasons for introducing Section 113-A and as per the said Statement of objects and Reasons, a rough estimate of about 3 lakh building approximately were unauthorisedly developed. If that was the position in the year 2000, now we are in the year 2014 and therefore, the number of unauthorized constructions got increased manifold primarily due to lack of attitude and responsibility on the part of the concerned statutory authorities, who deliberately turned a blind eye to prevent such kind of violations; though they are vested with sufficient powers to halt such unauthorized constructions and also failed to launch criminal prosecution against the violators. That apart, the nature and purpose of Development Control Rules, in Chennai Metropolitan Area was also not taken into proper consideration by the said Committee, based on which, the guidelines under G.O.Ms.No.234 and assessment and collection of amount under G.O.Ms.No.235, came to be passed. 54. This Court, while upholding the power of the State Government to introduce/insert Section 113-C by virtue of the judgment reported in (2000) 7 SCC 425 , is of the considered view that the relevant material and important aspects for giving proper effect to the said amendment have not been taken into proper consideration while framing guidelines and rules under G.O.Ms.No. 234 and 235 respectively dated 30.10.2012. Therefore, the same Committee, or a different committee to be constituted by the State Government, is to go into all aspects once again before giving effect to Section 113-C of the TCP Act. 55. In the result, (a) W.P.No.16786/2013, challenging the vires of Section 113-C of the Town and Country planning (Amendment) Act, 2012 is dismissed, No costs. (b) W.P.Nos.1664/2013 and 16787/2013, challenging the vires of G.O.Ms.No.234, Housing and Urban Development [UD4 (1)] Department dated 30.10.2012 are allowed and consequently, the said Government Order is quashed. No costs. (c) As a result of allowing W.P.Nos. 1664/ 2013 and 16787/2013, W.P.No.16785/2013, challenging the vires of G.O.Ms.No.235, Housing and Urban Development [UD4 (1)] Department dated 30.10.2012, is also allowed and it is quashed. No costs. No costs. (c) As a result of allowing W.P.Nos. 1664/ 2013 and 16787/2013, W.P.No.16785/2013, challenging the vires of G.O.Ms.No.235, Housing and Urban Development [UD4 (1)] Department dated 30.10.2012, is also allowed and it is quashed. No costs. (d) This Court while upholding the challenge made to G.O.Ms.No.234 and 235 dated 30.10.2012, is granting liberty to the State Government to refer the issues pointed out by this Court in the earlier paragraphs or any other matter, the Government may deem it fit and appropriate, to the very same Committee constituted under G.O.Ms.No.190, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 01.06.2007 or to a different Committee, and based on the recommendations to be given can frame appropriate guidelines and rules for proper and effective implementation of Section 113-C of the TCP Act. (e) It is needless to point out once again that but for lackadaisical attitude on the part of the concerned authorities, such an alarming and mushrooming growth of unauthorized and illegal constructions would not have come into place and the State Government and the concerned statutory authorities are required to act diligently and prevent recurrence of such kind of unlawful activities in future and deal with the violators with an iron hand. This Court also hopes and trusts that no further extension of cut-off date, will be granted in future, by the state Government. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.