8/12/2019 Shantistar 1995 Case

1/2

8/12/2019 Shantistar 1995 Case

2/2

Deput9 Commissioner is competent authorit9 and an appeal Aas pro=ided under the

$ct' eBcept for *omba9 and une' the $dditional Commissioner) For une and

*omba9' Commissioner Aould deal Aith the same) If the $dditional District ,ud;e

Aas to super=ise the functionin; of the allotment as per the scheme sanctioned under

s) 61 of the $ct' it Aould be incon=enient to the appellant authorit9 to consider the

scheme under the $ct)

0he entire thinkin; of the o=ernment is Aholl9 misconcei=ed) 0he Committee had

nothin; to do Aith the pro=isions of the /rban Ceilin; $ct) $fter the eBemption under

s)6@ or 61 is ;ranted' the buildin; is reuired to implement the scheme in terms of the

sanction made b9 the o=ernment for construction of buildin;s b9 the builders and

allotment to Aeaker section people) 0his Court intended to ensure that the builders

Aould abide b9 the ;uidelines laid doAn b9 this Court in the li;ht of the :ud;ment)

0he Committee Aould super=ise the allotment of the houses to the homeless Aeaker

section people in the li;ht of the ;uidelines laid doAn therein)0he State o=ernment

Aas also directed to recirculate the re=ised schemes in the li;ht of the abo=e

:ud;ment) In the circumstances' the uestion of the Commissioner sittin; in an appealo=er the Aorkin; of the Committee does not arise)

It is submitted that the takin; aAa9 of the discretionar9 poAer of the o=ernment in

allotment of the houses is not :ustified) We do not propose to modif9 our earlier

direction) 0he o=ernment is directed to compl9 Aith the constitution of the

Committee Aithin 7@ da9s from the date of the receipt of this order' since the same

has alread9 been dela9ed for more than fi=e 9ears from the date of the :ud;ment

constitutin; the committee)

C)$) "o)6! of 15 ? C)) "o)74@