UT Admn’s solar power plant directive challenged in HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 19

In the dusk of his life, a retired Army officer is fighting a different battle. At 97, Col Prithipal Singh Gill (retd) has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the UT Administration’s move to make installation of solar photovoltaic (SPV) power plant mandatory for residential and non-residential buildings.

Among other things, Col Gill has asserted that the threat of plot resumption held out to those failing to comply with the direction amounts to “intimidation” or in any case an “attempt to intimidate”.

Col Gill, through his counsel Prateek Gupta, has asserted that the threat was without any reason. It was based on a notification, which was without any legal sanction or authority.

“This clearly makes for criminal offences under Section 506 (criminal intimidation) or Section 506, read with Section 511 (attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life), of the Indian Penal Code against the official/officials concerned of the UT Administration and the Chandigarh Renewable Energy and Science and Technology Promotion Society (CREST), who have issued such threats without complying with the principles of natural justice,” he added. The case is expected to come up on Monday.

The petition

Col Prithipal Singh Gill (retd) is seeking the quashing and setting aside of a notification dated May 18, 2016, purported to have been issued by the Chief Administrator making the installation of solar power plant mandatory.

Claiming it was without any legal sanction or authority, Col Gill’s counsel Prakeek Gupta contended it was also illegal, arbitrary and in colourable exercise of power on the part of the then Chief Administrator. Directions have also been sought for staying its operation, implementation and effect during the pendency of the petition. 

Gupta further contended that the petitioner has been of late under great mental stress and tension. He was also disturbed by the illegal and arbitrary action of the Chandigarh Administration in insisting upon installation of SPV plant for residential buildings in the UT and making it mandatory.

Eclipsing factors

Gupta has claimed that the UT Administration has no power or authority whatsoever under Section 4 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, to issue such a notification. 

Referring to the clause, he said its intent and purpose was proper planning or Chandigarh’s development. It did not provide for installation of SPV plants “as has been erroneously and surreptitiously done by the respondents”.

Gupta added that the impugned notification, in the circumstances, had been issued in a totally perfunctory, casual and cavalier manner. Besides, it was issued without legislative competence, sanction or authority. 

Every administrative action or order should have legislative sanction. An officer cannot do so without legislative sanction or competence. The Act did not confer any power on the Chief Administrator to make installation of SPV plant mandatory for any building in Chandigarh.