E-Paper
Steeper fine for building misuse: Chandigarh admn meets business reps, assures of rational penalty rules
The committee is a joint forum of more than 20 associations of traders, industrialists and Resident Welfare Associations, who have voiced opposition against the amendment, through which the administration is planning to increase the penalty for building misuse from the current ₹500 to ₹2 lakh.
Deputy commissioner Vinay Pratap Singh on Wednesday held a meeting with representatives of Chandigarh Coordination Committee in connection with the proposed amendment in the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952.
The committee is a joint forum of more than 20 associations of traders, industrialists and Resident Welfare Associations, who have voiced opposition against the amendment, through which the administration is planning to increase the penalty for building misuse from the current ₹500 to ₹2 lakh.
In the meeting at the UT Guest House, committee representatives submitted that the violations should be considered as need-based changes and all cases against building owners since 2007 should be dropped. They also submitted that there should be a cap on the penalty, the daily fine should be reduced and it should be based on the property size and violation.
The deputy commissioner assured the delegation that the ₹2 lakh penalty will not be imposed on every violation. It will be levied only in case of serious violations and moreover the UT administration will frame rules for proportionate penalty as per the violations.
The UT administration had invited all trader associations for discussion on the proposed amendment of the Act. Industries Association of Chandigarh president Pankaj Khanna said the meeting was very positive and the administration provided clarity on all issues.
Meanwhile, Chandigarh Beopar Mandal (CBM) president Charanjiv Singh demanded that the internal changes in commercial buildings be allowed as per new business trends and needs to reduce incidents of violation and misuse. Singh also demanded removal of the clause regarding 5% yearly increase in penalty.
