Chandigarh: In a major embarrassment for the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has censured it for not exercising full discretion, administrative apathy and confusion in levying ‘abuse charges’ on certain SCO owners. A division bench of Justices Arun Palli and Vikram Agarwal gave this warning on a petition filed by Anit Gill and another petitioner against the Union Territory of Chandigarh and other respondents. Among other things, the petitioners said that they were the owners of an SCO in Sector 36, which was leased to their ‘predecessors’ in September 1985 for 99 years for ‘general trade’. The first and second floors of the building were rented out to an institute and an academy for conducting coaching classes.
The term ‘general trade’ was replaced by ‘new general trade’ through an amendment dated May 16, 2002, allowing the running of computer training centres and educational coaching centres. In such a situation, it was illegal and arbitrary to levy ‘misuse charges’ on them in the absence of any misuse by them. On the other hand, the respondents said that running the centre for educational purposes falls under the category of ‘high intensity business’. It was necessary to obtain permission for conversion of business. As the permission was not obtained, the petitioners were liable to pay misuse charges. The bench found that the floor was used for coaching purposes from July 15, 2005 to August 8, 2006. Thereafter, the alleged misuse was stopped. The question for consideration by the court was whether using the floor for coaching purposes amounts to ‘misuse’, making the petitioners liable to pay the charges. The bench said that a combined perusal of the notifications clearly shows that conversion charges were not payable as the SCO was allotted for ‘general business’ and not for any specific category. These floors were used for running coaching centres only after the amendment was issued on May 16, 2002. Thus, granting permission to academic coaching centres cannot be termed as misuse.
It further said that a similar view was adopted by the UT chief administrator in November 2007. It held that the site could not have been restarted as the permission was granted for ‘misuse’ by the Chandigarh administration. “It is, therefore, clear that the action of the respondents in accusing the petitioner of misuse is clearly erroneous and is a result of total non-application of mind and administrative apathy coupled with the confusion created by the administration by issuing notifications without really clarifying any of the subject matter. The respondents, if we may say so, have created confusion not only for themselves but also for the petitioner and possibly for many others in a similar situation,” the bench said, while also directing them to refund the entire amount paid along with interest at 6 per cent per annum.
