M. L. MANCHANDA & ORS. versus UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ORS.

M. L. MANCHANDA & ORS. versus UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ORS.

The amendment to Rule 4(3) was validly made within the powers of section 24 of the Act and is not ultra vires; Rule 4(3) is not retrospective in operation as the proviso requires notice to those already in occupation, and the scheme's limitation to low paid industrial workers justifies the income cap.

Parties
Appellants: M. L. Manchanda & Ors.; Respondents: Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors.; Respondents: Respondents 4-8, 10-25, 27-30 & 32-36
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 March 1977
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court Dated 28.04.1975 in Civil Writ Petition No. 1819 of 1975
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Validity of Delegated Legislation, Retrospective Operation of Rules, Eviction Under Housing Statutes
Administrative Law Housing Law Validity of Delegated Legislation Retrospective Operation of Rules Eviction Under Housing Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. L. Manchanda & Ors.

Appellants

Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors.

Respondents

Respondents 4-8, 10-25, 27-30 & 32-36

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave Against Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court Dated 28.04.1975 in Civil Writ Petition No. 1819 of 1975

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 4(3) of the Punjab Industrial Housing Rules, 1972 is ultra vires the Punjab Industrial Housing Act, 1956
  2. 2 Whether the amendment to Rule 4(3) operates retrospectively

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to Rule 4(3) was validly made within the powers of section 24 of the Act and is not ultra vires; Rule 4(3) is not retrospective in operation as the proviso requires notice to those already in occupation, and the scheme's limitation to low paid industrial workers justifies the income cap.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Time granted to appellants to vacate till 31st August 1977 on undertaking to give vacant possession on or before that date.