IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6245 of 2007 Date of decision:15.12.2009 Bhushan Kumar Jain and another ....Petitioner versus Municipal Council, Hisar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. K.C.Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents 2 and 3 ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The challenge of the petitioner to a demand for development charges was resisted by the Municipal Council on the ground that development fee was to be paid at the rate of Rs.464/- per square meter and since the demand had not been made, the application for sanction of the plan could not be acceded to, unless such payment was made. The contention of the petitioner is that as per Rule 8 of the Building Bye-laws appended to the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1973, the application for sanction shall be made in a prescribed form accompanied with requisite number of plans and documents together with fee as laid down in Schedule IV. Rule 9 prescribes as mode of sanction to erect or Civil Writ Petition No.6245 of 2007 - 2 - re-erect a building. Schedule IV read with Bye Law No.8 prescribes the schedule of fee payable for various types of building that include a commercial building which the petitioner has proposed to build. It sets out the fee to be Re.1 per cubic meter with a minimum of Rs.20/-. This amount, according to the petitioner, has been paid and in the absence of specific orders amending the Bye Law or the schedule of fee payable under Schedule IV, there could be no scope for payment of development charges. 2. In view of the stand taken by the Municipal Council referring to an alleged upward revision of the schedule of fee, this Court directed the impleadment of the State Government as a party to the proceedings. Accordingly, the State of Haryana, through the Secretary and Commissioner, Department of Local Bodies and the Director Development of Urban Local Bodies, Haryana, have been impleaded by order dated 25.09.2008. Respondents 2 and 3 are represented through counsel and at the hearing date 07.10.2009, it was represented that they do not wish to file any reply. To a specific contention raised by the petitioner that there had been no change in the schedule of fee payable even on the date when he filed an application, there has been no response. The inevitable consequence shall be that there is nothing on record to substantiate through any documentary proof that there had been a upward revision to the scale of fee as prescribed in schedule IV read with Rule 8 of the Bye laws. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent relies on a so-called letter said to have been received by the Municipal Council from Civil Writ Petition No.6245 of 2007 - 3 - the Government. The letter itself finds a mention only in the reply and the learned counsel states that he has a copy of the said letter in his custody. A letter which the respondent may have is no proof of its contents nor there is any authenticity for any such letter. The contention therefore that they were demanding an increased levy on such a letter cannot advance the case of the 1st respondent. The plea of the 1st respondent is also rejected. 4. The demand of additional development charges is unsubstantiated and the petitioner is entitled to have the demand made by the 1st respondent quashed. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 15.12.2009 sanjeev