LexM. CHANDRU versus THE MEMBER SECRETARY, CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 2 S.C.R. 661 _.I M. CHANDRU A v THE MEMBER SECRETARY, CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. Civil Appeal No. 1079 of 2009 FEBRUARY 17, 2009 B [ S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ ] " Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage ·infrastructure Development Charges (Levy and Collection) c Regulations, 1998 : Regulation 4 - Infrastructure development charges - Levy and collection of by Sewerage Board through CMDA - HELD: Providing for collection of JDC is matter of procedure and not a substantive provision, and, as such not a delegation D of power- However, JDC being a fee, principle of quid pro quo .J shall apply-As no justification for levy of fee was placed before High Court, matter remitted to it for consideration afresh - The Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978 - ss. 6 and 81 (2) (jj) -Administrative Law- Delegation of power E - Fee - Principle of quid pro quo. By virtue of s. 6(2)(xii-a), of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978, the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board levied infrastructure development charges at the rate of Rs.64/- F per sq. metre on multi-storeyed buildings, and under Regulation 4 of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Infrastructure Development Charges (Levy and Collection) Regulations, 1998, authorized Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority to collect the same. G The appellants-builders and developers challenged the " collection of IDC in writ petitions before the High Court which upheld the levy and its collection observing that CMDA had been empowered by the Sewerage Board to 661 H ., 662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A collect the said charges in terms of the Regulations and t. the same was valid in law. Aggrieved, the builders and l '- t- developers filed the appeals. Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to the -B High Court, the Court. ·, HELD: 1.1 The Sewerage Board is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is a creature of statute. It can delegate its power provided there "' exists a provision in the Act. Power to delegate, thus, being c a statutory requirement, must find its place in the principal I- Act itself and not in the Regulation. [para 19] [673-E] 1.2 However, by virtue of Regulation 4 of the Chennai .i ' Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Infrastructure t D Development Charges (Levy and Collection1 Regulations, 1998, framed in terms of s.81 (2)(jj) of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1978, CMDA has been autho'rized to collect IDC. Thus, providing for collection of IDC is a matter of procedure and not a E substantive provision, and, as such, is not a delegation of power. ·cMDA has no power to assess IDC, nor does it have any power to utilize/ appropriate any fund collected on behalf of the Sewerage Board. The power of collection is merely an incidental power. [para 21] [674-D-F] F 2.1 State or the Board did not state as to on what basis the rate of Rs.64/- per square meter was fixed. What was the amount to be spent towards services to be rendered to the multi-storeyed and special buildings had ._ not been spelt out. What had merely been stated was that ' G the amount was necessary to be spent for overall development of the water supply and sewerage system. If IDC is a fee, the principle of quid pro quo shall apply. .. Like a State, all other authorities who are statutorily empowered to levy a fee, must spell out as to on what H basis, the same is charged. The State has not placed any M. CHANDRU V. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, CHENNAI 663 MET. DEV. AUTH. & ANR. _,. ~ material before the High Court. The High Court has als9 A not addressed itself properly on the same issue. [para 23] [674; 675-A-B] Sri Krishna Das v. Town Area Committee, Chirgaon (1990) 3 SCC 645; Jindal Stainless Ltd. (2) & Anr. v. State of Haryana B & Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 241; Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee & Anr. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. & Ors. (2008) SCC 575; Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. State of H.P & Ors. 2009 (1) SCALE 510; A.P. Paper Mills Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. and Another (2000) 8 SCC 167; Ashok Lanka and Another v. Rishi Dixit and Others c (2005) 5 SCC 598; Kera/a Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State of Kera/a and Others (2006) 4 SCC 327; State of Kera/a and Others v. Maharashtra Distilleries Ltd. and Others (2005)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.