No punitive measures for not installing solar plants till November 20, Chandigarh tells Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court was today told by UT-Chandigarh that it will not press for the resumption or taking over of properties following non-installation of mandatory solar photovoltaic (SPV) power plants.

The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma was told that the undertaking will remain in operation, at least, till November 20 – the next date of hearing in the matter.

The hearing in the case was adjourned following request by the UT counsel. The petition filed in the matter questions the legislative competence and authority of the Chandigarh Administration in making such installations compulsory for residential and non-residential buildings through an order issued on May 18, 2016.

In his petition, Kulvir Narwal, through counsel Rohit Sud, contended that the Chief Administrator’s office acted beyond its powers by issuing the notification in this regard, and the impugned order was passed without any legislative sanction or justification. The challenge is based on the fact that neither the Chandigarh Administration nor the Chief Administrator possesses the legal authority to mandate such a requirement.

The petitioner contended that the UT Administrator exercising powers under Section 4 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act of 1952 issued the notification making the plant mandatory for residential and other buildings in Chandigarh.

But the Central Government or the Chief Administrator can only issue directions concerning construction and urban planning under the 1952 Act governing Chandigarh’s planning and development. The petitioner argued: “It is a well-settled principle that every administrative action or order must have legislative backing. In this case, the notification issued by the Chandigarh Administration lacks the requisite legislative authority, rendering the order and related show-cause notices invalid.”

The executive could only exercise powers of subordinate legislation when such powers were delegated by the legislature. However, the administration’s decision to mandate SPV installations allegedly exceeded the boundaries of such delegated powers and stood in violation of the legislative framework. “Without the delegation of specific powers, the Chief Administrator cannot make such orders,” the plea asserts.

It was also argued that the provisions of the 1952 Act governing Chandigarh did not confer any powers on the Chief Administrator to make the installation of SPV plants mandatory for any building in Chandigarh. The power purportedly exercised under Section 4 of the 1952 Act, according to the petitioner, is baseless and unsupported by legislative competence.

The petitioner, as such, sought directions to invalidate the order and the subsequent show-cause notices issued to property owners, calling for the court to quash the impugned notifications and actions.