Section 54r
/w proviso 10 . 2 of Modified Building Bye Lawsconstruction oi' muliistoreycci buildina made after making major deviation from the sanction plan -proviso i 0.2 of the bye laws would not give protection from demolition of ihe portion of the building beyond sanction plan since the provision is applicable only in case where them has been minor deviations . Mis Seke; Housing Uc}, vs. Patna Regional Dev. Authority, 2003 (4) PLJR , 832
Section 54 r/w proviso 10 . 2 of Modified Building Bye Lawsconstruction oi' muliistoreycci buildina made after making major deviation from the sanction plan -proviso i 0.2 of the bye laws would not give protection from demolition of ihe portion of the building beyond sanction plan since the provision is applicable only in case where them has been minor deviations . Mis Seke; Housing Uc}, vs. Patna Regional Dev. Authority, 2003 (4) PLJR , 832
-demolition of portion beyond sanction plan of a multi -storeyed apartment constructed dter making major deviation from the sanction plan -allottee~ oi the apartmea: have no vested righ, in the matter and their interest am · iargGdy linked with the builder -even considered othorwiso, if ihe structures have been illegallv constructed and order u/s 54 of the Aci is justified , it makes no dif:'erence whether the premises are self occupied or am tenanted premises. Mis 8aket Housing Ltd. vs . Patna Regional Dev. Autho~ity, 2003 (4) PLJR, 832 . ]
5'.). 1:mencr~:,, bv cornpanies . e--It) If the person committing an offence under this Act is a . ompany. eve1y person , who at the time the offence vvas com -miitcd, was in charge of, f, and was responsible. to the company for ihe conduct of the business o, the company , as well as the-company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordinqly .
Provided that nothing contained in ihis sub-section shall ;ender any such person liable 1 . 0 any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the otfence was committee without his knowledge or that he excrclsec 211 due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section Cl) v11here an offence , , nr1.,,· thi<>Ar.t has been committed by a company and it is proved that the --c -·· ;,..., "" ""-~l"ih1 , t~hlo
to any negiecl on the part of, any director , manager, secretary or other officflr of ttie company, such director , manager, secretary or othr r officer shall ilso ue deemed to be g11i!ty of that offence and shall bo liable It be proceeded. aqa.nst and punished accordingly . _
En:planaU011.For the purposes of this section (a, Company's mean., a body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals and (b) 'director' in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.
Comments /Jt case-law
[Director Chairman or General Manager of a Company or Partner of a ! · rrm are vicariously liable for the offence committed by the Company or Firm unless he or they establish their innocence . Mahmud Ali w ,. Ste!e of Biher; 1986 Pl JR 123 (FB) .
Burden of proof is on the Director , Chairman or General Manager o~ the prosecuted Company or Partner of prosecuted Firm to establish their personal innocence . Sadri Prasad Gupta vs. State of Bitisr, 198n PLJR 246 (FB) . ]