Dream Builders Limited was engaged in the activity of building and selling budget friendly apartments. It recently started a new project at Noida.…

As per Section 17 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of indicating the application of a law to every person or number of persons for the time being executing the functions of an office, to mention the official title of the officer at present executing the functions, or that of the officer by whom the functions are commonly executed. As per Section 18 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be sufficient, for the purpose of indicating the relation of a law to the successors of any functionaries or of corporations having perpetual succession, to express its relation to the functionaries or corporations. In other words, the General Clauses Act, 1897, provides general definitions and rules for interpreting laws, particularly Central Acts and Regulations. Section 18 specifically deals with the continuity of laws when a functionary is replaced. It clarifies that when a law refers to a specific official, it's not limited to that individual but extends to their successors. This means that if a law grants power to a particular officer, that power also extends to their successor, unless explicitly stated otherwise. A successor in office can generally continue a case under the General Clauses Act, and this is also related to the doctrine of merger. As per Section 18, the power to appoint includes the power to appoint ex-officio, meaning the authority is attached to the office, not the individual. Further, under section 17, official acts continue to remain valid despite changes in officeholders. As per the facts of the question and a combined reading of Sections 17 and 18 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, Mr. G, in his capacity as the current Assistant Commissioner, is legally competent to order the demolition of the construction. This is because the original order was issued by Mr. S, the former Assistant Commissioner, in his official capacity, and the authority to act continues with the office, not the individual. Hence, the claim of Dream Builders Limited is not valid.