Satish Kumar Mittal, J.@mdashIn the instant writ petition filed under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashing two separate orders dated 26.7.2010 (Annexures P-25 and P-26) passed by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad (respondent No. 3 herein), whereby applications submitted by the petitioner for issuance of Completion/Occupation Certificate regarding Booth Site Nos. 96 and 97 in Sector 29, Faridabad, owned by him, have been rejected on the ground that while constructing both the Booths, the petitioner did not provide the sky light in the same. The petitioner is further seeking quashing of the orders dated 9.2.2011 and 14.8.2012 (Annexures P-28 and P-31), whereby the appeal and revision, filed by him against the said orders have been dismissed by the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad (respondent No. 2 herein) and the Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government Haryana (Town & Country Planning Department), Chandigarh (respondent No. 1 herein), respectively. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. A perusal of the order dated 14.8.2012 passed by the revisional authority indicates that during the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner was given opportunity to make provision for sky light in both the Booths. For that purpose, the case was adjourned for two/three times, but the petitioner refused to make provision for sky light in both the Booths.
However, he insisted that violation of non providing sky light in Booth Nos. 98, 99, 106 and 107 has been compounded. Therefore, in his case also, the said violation be compounded. This contention of the petitioner has been dealt with by the revisional authority, and it has been found that in some cases, previously the Estate Officer had illegally compounded the said violation, which actually is not compoundable. In this regard, a direction has been issued to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, to hold a detailed enquiry to find out such cases where illegal composition of non providing sky light has been done and to take appropriate action against the defaulting official/officer as per rules. It has also been directed that review petitions in all those cases be moved u/s 30 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, within a month''s time.
3. Admittedly, both the Booths owned by the petitioner are Booth-cum-Basement sites, and size of each Booth is 2.75 x 8.25 Meters. It has not been disputed that under the Building Bye-laws, it is mandatory to provide sky light in the Booth-cum-Basement site. Non providing of sky light is a major violation, which cannot be compounded. Both the Booth-cum-Basements sites of the petitioner are being used for commercial purposes and the employees used to work in the Basement. Therefore, providing of sky light is an important factor and non providing of the same cannot be compounded, because it effects the health of the employees.
4. It has been argued before us that when in certain cases, violation of non providing sky light was compounded, similar treatment should have been given to the petitioner. This aspect has been considered by the authorities below and it has been held that merely because in some cases, illegal compounding was made, which was not permissible under law, the petitioner cannot be permitted to compound the said illegality by invoking the equality clause, particularly when after coming to the notice of the higher authorities about this illegal compounding, a clear direction has been given not to compound such violations, and further with a direction to take action against the erring officials/officers, who illegally compounded the said violations. It is well settled that an illegality cannot be permitted to be perpetuated by invoking the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner could not point out even a single case, where after the decision in his case, any compounding of such violation has been done by the respondents. Therefore, on the basis of the earlier illegalities, the authorities, in our opinion, have rightly not accepted the contention of the petitioner for equal treatment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that vide letter dated 17.6.2010, respondent No. 3 allowed the request of the petitioner for clubbing both the Booths. He further argued that after clubbing both the Booth sites, the total area became 5.5 x 8.25 Meters, therefore, the front size is almost equal to a commercial building. By referring to a letter dated 2.12.2009 (Annexure P-34) issued by the Senior Architect, HUDA, Panchkula, to respondent No. 3, learned counsel argued that as far as commercial building is concerned, construction of the same may be permitted without providing sky light, provided that a certificate is given by the allottee to the effect that "air conditioning will be done on a permanent basis in commercial building and shall be maintained as such." We have gone through the said letter, which clearly provides that omission of sky light cannot be allowed in Booth with Basement site as sky light forms a part of air cycle route. As far as the other commercial buildings are concerned, omission of sky light may be permitted if certificate to the aforesaid effect is given by the allottee. So in a Booth with Basement site, the provision of sky light cannot be exempted or compounded.
6. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the authorities below. Dismissed.
