THE CONSUMER ACTION GROUP AND ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 523 · Decided: 18-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

THE CONSUMER ACTION GROUP AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
AUGUST 18, 2000 
[B.N. KIRPAL, A.P. MISRA AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971-Section 113-
Power to grant exemption-Whether ultra vires-Due to excessive delegation 
A 
B 
of essential legislative functions-Held, no-Since the preamble, objects, 
reasons and various provisions of the Act give clear-cut policy and guidelines 
C 
to the Government-Constitution of lndia-Articles 14 & 21. 
Government orders-Passed under the Section-In violation of the pro-
visions of the Act and Rules-Without recording any reasons-And setting aside 
the orders, earlier passed by the Statutory Authorities in terms of the Act and 
Rules-Legality of-Held, illc:gal. 
D 
Power to exempt-Exercise of-It is obligatory on the Government to 
record the reasons, while passing order under the Section, even if Section is 
silent about recording the reason. 
Tamil Nadu Town & Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998: 
Section I I 3-A-Regularisation of illegal construction-Plea that the Act 
is ultra vires-Since it is against policy of the Statute and public interest and 
is extension of the unbridled power of exemption granted under Section 113-
The Act cannot be challenged on the ground that the discretion of the delegatee 
E 
is unbridled-The Section r/w. statement of objects and reasons clearly indi-
F 
cates legislatures intent and policy and no discretion is left to the Govern-
ment-Section as a one time measure is a valid piece of legislation-In order 
to stop s•Jch situations from recurring, State has to take effective measures-
Constitution of India-Articles 14 & 21. 
Administrative Law-Delegation of power-Exercise of-Whenever any 
statute confers any power on any statutory authority including a delegatee 
under a valid statute, howsoever wide the discretion may be, the same has to 
be exercised reasonably within the sphere that statute confers and such exercise 
G 
of power must stand the test to judicial scrutiny which is one of the basic 
features of our Constitution-The reason recorded truely discloses the 
H 
523 
524 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
justifiability of the exercise of such power-While exercising such a power the 
authority has to keep in mind the purpose and the policy of the Act and while 
granting relief has to equate the resultant effect of such a grant on both viz., the 
public and the individual. 
Rights-Fundamental and individual-Scope of-Every individual right 
B 
including fundamental right is within reasonable limit-But if it inroads public 
rights leading to public inconvenience, it has to be curtailed to that extent. 
c 
The petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 32 of the 
Constitution, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 113 of Tamil 
Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 as ultra viresof Article 14 and 
21 of the Constitution, and the validity of the orders passed under it by 
respondent No. 1 granting exemptions. The petitioners contended that the 
power under the section were being exercised indiscriminately in granting 
exemption, in violation of public policy as laid down under the Act and the 
Development Control Rules; and that section 113 is ultra vires, because 
D 
there are no guidelines to control the power, and the same amounts to 
delegation by the legislature of its essential legislative power. The State 
contended that the power is controlled by the guidelines, which could be 
gathered from the preamble, objects and reasons including various provi-
sions of the Act and the Rules, and hence Section 113 cannot be held ultra 
E 
vires. The petitioner brought to the notice of the Court 62 orders passed 
between 1.7.87 to ·29.1.88 under Section 113, and contended that these 
orders are arbitrary and illegal as the same have been passed in disregard 
of the provisions of the Act and Rules without assigning any reasons; and 
that these orders override even the orders passed by the Development 
F 
G 
H 
Authority rejecting their plans as not being in conformity with the devel-
opment Rules. 
During pendency of the writ petitions, the State passed Tamil Nadu 
Town and Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998 through which Section 113-A 
was introduced in 1971 Act. The petitioner also challenged the amending 
Act, vide separate writ petition, and contended that Section 113-A is against 
policy of the statute and against public interest, and the same suffers from 
the same vi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.