Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the records available before us on these two Public Interest Litigation Petitions
(hereinafter referred to as the PIL Petitions).
2. Since, common questions of law and facts are involved in both these PIL Petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment which
follows.
3. Under challenge in these PIL Petitions is the Notification dated 21st April 2017 issued by the Government of Maharashtra in the Urban
Development Department under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act),
whereby sanction by the State Government has been accorded to the draft revised Development Plan of the city of Ulhasnagar with the Schedule of
modifications as per the Schedule-I appended to the Notification with certain notes. In PIL Petition No.37 of 2018, the Corrigendum issued by the
Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra dated 23rd June 2017 has also been challenged. The said Corrigendum dated 23rd June
2017 has been issued on observation of certain errors, which, according to the State, have been corrected.
4. The thrust of arguments in support of these PIL Petitions is that while preparing the Development Plan, various statutory prescriptions available in
the MRTP Act have been flouted. It has been stated in this regard by the Petitioners that the provisions of Section 25 of the MRTP Act, which
provides for survey and preparation of existing land use map have not been adhered to and the base map, prepared for the said purpose is faulty and
far away from the actual land use on the spot. It has further been argued that existing land use map should be based on physical survey where all
existing users are to be duly marked, however, the existing land use map prepared for the preparation of Master Plan in this case does not identify
several land marks of the town, existing public amenities, some public utilities and actual use of land. The Petitioners have given certain examples of
such lapses, in the PIL Petitions.
5. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that various objections were raised to the survey and existing land use map,
however, these objections have been overlooked by the authorities and hence, the provisions of Section 25 of the MRTP Act have been flouted.
6. Further submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that detailed provisions have been made in the circulars issued by the State of
Maharashtra, dated 19th June 1979, 5th June 1985 and 15th June 1992, however, the norms as prescribed by the State Government in the circulars
have not been followed. Drawing our attention to yet another circular dated 11th April 2012, which contains further norms for preparation of draft
Development Plan and removal of errors, it has been submitted that even the provisions made in the said circular have not been followed. Pointing out
the flaw in the process of preparation of base map, it has been stated that identity of certain properties situate in the city, could not be ascertained.
The Petitioners have stated that in absence of appropriate base map the Government built properties like barracks, Governments shops which were
transferred to the refugees by the Central Government, lands bearing plots for residential and commercial and industrial purposes, encroachment
comprising of extension of Government built properties and constructions and lands under hill slopes and low lying areas, ought to have been kept
outside the purview of planning for future needs.
7. It has also been submitted by the Petitioners that objections submitted to the draft Development Plan under Section 28 of the MRTP Act have also
not been considered though serious objections were raised and the proposed planning of the city of Ulhasnagar is full of errors. It is stated further that
in all 17033 objections were raised to the draft Development Plan as published under Section 36 of the MRTP Act, however, hearing was conducted
only in respect of 2548 objections and rest all the objections remained unheard. Accordingly, the submission is that the procedure adopted by the
Planning Committee constituted under Section 28 of the MRTP Act, while hearing and deciding the objections raised against the draft Development
Plan, is illegal. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the draft Development Plan submitted by Respondent No.6 â€
Corporation was scrutinized by the Director of Town Planning, Government of Maharashtra which submitted a report raising serious objections to the
draft Development Plan, opining that implementation of such a plan, practically, is not possible.
8. It is stated by the Petitioners that the State Government, instead of taking a note of the serious objections raised by the Director of Town Planning
and without considering the same, took a decision to accord sanction to the draft Development Plan and accordingly issued the impugned Notification
on 21st April 2017. The Petitioners have relied upon the judgment in the case of Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Mundappa and Ors. (1991) 4 SCC
54 to submit that protection of environment, open spaces for recreation and fresh area, playgrounds for children and other conveniences and amenities
are matter of great public concern and it should be taken care of in every development scheme or plan, however, while preparing the Development
Plan, need of the residents of the city have been ignored. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the Petitioners on yet another judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1996) 5 SCC 647, and it has been argued
that in this judgment much emphasis has been laid on protection of environment but while preparing the Master Plan for the city of Ulhasnagar, the
Respondents have been unmindful of such needs of the general public. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Manohar Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 619. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners have also relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others Vs. Hiraman Sitaram Deorukhkar (2019) 14 SCC
411. The judgment in the case of Mayor, Municipal Corporation Vs. Govind Bajirao Navpute (2020) 18 SCC 736 has also been put into service by the
learned Counsel for the Petitioners for emphasizing that in case of violation of any of the statutory provisions of the MRTP Act and in case of failure
of authorities in performance of their statutory duties, has to necessarily lead to quashing of a plan prepared by flouting the statutory provisions. The
Petitioners have also relied on the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Govind B. Navpute Vs. the State of Maharashtra &
Ors. judgment dated 05.08.2016 in WP 1981/2016 (Aurangabad Bench).
9. Vehemently opposing the PIL Petitions, the learned State Counsel and the learned Counsel representing the Respondent Corporation have
submitted that the impugned Notification dated 21 st April 2017 and the Corrigendum dated 23rd June 2017 according sanction by the State
Government to the draft Development Plan for the city of Ulhasnagar do not suffer from any illegality, as the plan has been prepared and approved
strictly following the various statutory stages in terms of the provisions contained in the MRTP Act. It has also been argued that the MRTP Act is a
State Legislation and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Promoters and Builders
Association & Anr. (2004) 10 SCC 796 when any legislative function is exercised, unless some unreasonableness or arbitrariness is pointed out in the
procedure, it is not open for the Court to interfere in such matters. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the Respondents on the judgment in the
case of Ramdas s/o. Marotrao Kathle & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. judgment dated 18.10.2016 in WP No.1501/2016 a/w. connected
matters (Nagpur Bench) , wherein it has been held that the nature of inquiry in public hearing contemplated for the procedure for enactment of
delegated piece of legislation may be a condition precedent in enacting such subordinate legislation, however, the nature and extent of such inquiry in
public hearing is in the discretion of the legislating body and that it is not open to question on the ground that the same is lacking in terms of extent.
Citing the judgment in Ramdas (supra), it has also been argued on behalf of the Respondents that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to
such delegated piece of legislation concerning publication of Development Plan is limited and inquiry by the Courts in such matters has to be confined
to the issue as to whether the procedure as contemplated in the Act or the Legislation under which such subordinate legislation is issued, have been
complied with or not.
10. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel representing the respective parties.
11. City of Ulhasnagar in the District of Thane, State of Maharashtra is a town largely inhabited by Sindhi migrants in the aftermath of partition. It is
stated by the Petitioners that Master Plan for the city was first prepared in the year 1951 wherein all lands lying in the city were divided in such a
manner that existing barracks, which were initially set up during the second world war, were laid into these marked places and that all other vacant
lands were divided into residential, commercial, industrial places and were marked with plot numbers which were provided access through Master
Plan roads.
12. The State Legislature, with a view to provide for planning and development and use of land and also for constitution of Regional Planning Boards
and to make better provisions for preparing Development Plan to ensure that the town planning schemes are made in a proper manner and their
execution is made effective and also with a view to create new towns by development authorities, enacted the Maharashtra Act No.XXXVII of 1966
i.e. the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The said Act, inter alia, provides for establishment of Regions and alteration of its limits
and constitution of Regional Planning Boards. It also provides for preparation of regional plans with a view to secure planned development and use of
land in a region. Apart from making provisions for preparation of regional plans, the Act also provides for preparation of Development Plan.
13. As a first step for preparation of Development Plan, Section 21 of the MRTP Act requires that every Planning Authority shall carry out a survey,
prepare an existing land use map and prepare a draft Development Plan for the area within its jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the
MRTP Act. Section 21 also requires that after preparation of the draft Development Plan, same has to be submitted to the State Government for
according its sanction. Section 22 provides, as to what a Development Plan shall contain, according to which a Development Plan has to contain
various provisions so that development of the region may be ensured in a planned and not in haphazard manner. For preparing a Development Plan,
the Planning Authority under Section 23 of the MRTP Act is required to make a declaration of its intention to prepare a Development Plan. The
Planning Authority is also required under the said provision to publish such notice in the Official Gazette and in the newspapers as well inviting
suggestions and objections from the public within the period specified under Section 23 of the MRTP Act. The Planning Authority is also required to
resolve to appoint a person as a town planning officer at the time of declaration of intention to prepare a Development Plan and thereafter under
Section 25 of the MRTP Act, survey of the lands within the jurisdiction of the Planning Authority is to be conducted and existing land use map
indicating the existing use of land is to be prepared. Under Section 26, after the survey and preparation of existing land use map in terms of Section 25,
the Planning Authority prepares a draft Development Plan and publishes a notice in the Official Gazette inviting objections and suggestions. Section 28
provides for the provisions in respect of the objections to draft Development Plan, according to which, in case any objection or suggestion is received
from any person by the Planning Authority relating to the draft Development Plan, the Authority, after considering the report of the Planning
Committee under sub Section (2) of Section 28 of the MRTP Act and the suggestions and /or objections received by it, shall modify or change the plan
in such a manner as the Authority thinks fit.
14. As per the requirement of Section 28(2) of the MRTP Act, the Planning Authority is required to forward objections and suggestions received by it
to the Planning Committee which is to be appointed by the Director of Town Planning for consideration of the objections and suggestions for
preparation of a report. It is this report to be prepared under Section 28(2) which is to be considered by the Planning Authority under Section 28(1) of
the MRTP Act along with suggestions and objections for modifying or effecting any change in the draft Development Plan. Under sub-section 3 of
Section 28 of the MRTP Act, the Planning Committee is entrusted to make such inquiry as may be considered necessary. It may also give opportunity
of being heard to any person including representatives of the Government Departments who may have filed objections or made any suggestions in
respect of the draft Development Plan and after consideration of the same, the Planning Committee is required to submit its report to the Planning
Authority. Such report is required to be considered by the Planning Authority as per the provisions contained in Section 28(4) including the objections
and suggestions received by it which shall make a list of modifications and changes and carry out the same in the draft Development Plan as the
Authority may consider proper. The Planning Authority is thereafter required to publish the list of modifications or changes made in the draft
Development Plan for opinion of the public.
15. As per Section 30, the Planning Authority is required to submit a draft Development Plan along with a list of modifications or changes made under
Section 28(4) to the State Government, whereupon the State Government, after consulting with the Director of Town Planning, may sanction the draft
Development Plan submitted to it by way of publication of a notification to the said effect in the official gazette. This sanction, however, can be
accorded by the State Government with or without modification or draft Development Plan may be returned to the Planning Authority or the
Government may refuse to accord its sanction and direct the Planning Authority to prepare a fresh Development Plan.
16. The impugned Notification dated 21st April 2017 and the Corrigendum issued thereto dated 23rd June 2017 are referable to Section 31 of the
MRTP Act, whereby, as observed above, the State of Maharashtra has accorded its sanction to the above Development Plan submitted by the
Planning Authority i.e. the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation.
17. In the instant case, as per the averments made in the PIL Petitions, the first Master Plan as per the provisions of the MRTP Act was prepared in
the year 1974. On 7th March 2005 a resolution was passed by the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation declaring its intention to prepare the revised
Development Plan and also appointing the Director of Town Planning or the Assistant Director of Town Planning of the State Government as the
Town Planning Officer and accordingly, a notice in the Official Gazette of such intention was published. However, the General House of the
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation passed another resolution on 10th March 2010 for preparation of a revised Development Plan and accordingly,
declaration of intention to prepare a Development Plan for the city of Ulhasnagar under Section 23 of the MRTP Act read with Section 38 of the
MRTP was published on 27th May 2010. By said notice, suggestions and objections were invited from citizens which were required to be submitted to
the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation. After conducting survey and preparation of land use map etc. the draft Development Plan was
prepared and notice under Section 26(1) of the MRTP Act was published inviting suggestions and objections from public on the draft Development
Plan and also for preparation of the report. The notice was published in the Official Gazette dated 4-10th April 2013 with a stipulation therein that the
objection relating to the draft Master Plan shall be considered before the said plan is submitted to the State Government under Section 30 of the
MRTP Act. The Planning Committee, in terms of the requirements of Section 28 of the MRTP Act, was constituted which also invited objections and
prepared its report and thereafter, on 2nd July 2014, the Municipal Corporation submitted the entire material to the State Government seeking its
sanction as per the requirement of Section 30 of the MRTP Act. It is to be noted that the letter dated 2nd July 2014, whereby the approval / sanction
of the State Government, as required under Section 30 or 31, was sought, clearly mentions that the draft Development Plan was prepared by following
the procedure as prescribed under the MRTP Act. As per the said letter, the town Planning Authority appointed for preparing the draft Development
Plan, prepared and revised the Development Plan and the report and submitted the same for approval of the Planning Authority. The letter also states
that following the provisions of Section 26 and 28 of the MRTP Act, the Planning Committee was formed and accordingly, the Development Plan was
published in terms of the provisions of Section 26 of the MRTP Act and on approval of the same by the General House of the Ulhasnagar Municipal
Corporation, wide publicity was given to the same. The letter also states that 17033 objections and suggestions were received on the draft
Development Plan and such objections and suggestions were taken note of by the Planning Committee which even provided hearing and accordingly
prepared a summary of its recommendations. It is on the said submissions of the draft Development Plan by the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation
that the State Government has accorded its sanction by the impugned Notification and the Corrigendum issued thereto, with certain modifications.
18. First and foremost question which arises for consideration of this Court in this Case is as to what is the extent of judicial scrutiny permissible by
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matters. The Development Plan, as observed above, in relation to any city or town is
prepared under the statutory scheme of the MRTP Act 1966. If we examine the scheme contained in Section 21 to 31 of the MRTP Act, what we
find is that the statutory scheme takes adequate precaution to consider the objections raised against and suggestions tendered in relation to the
proposed Master Plan from the members of the general public or citizenry.
19. The Development Plan, thus, prepared under the statutory provisions of the MRTP Act is a subordinate piece of legislation, in the sense, that it is
prepared and sanctioned by the authorities described in the said Act as per the procedure prescribed therein. The Development Plan, thus, being a
piece of subordinate legislation, can though be subjected to challenge before this Court by way of invoking the jurisdiction of the court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, however, the scope and extent of judicial scrutiny permissible in such matters is limited to ensure if the procedure as
prescribed under the Statute has been strictly followed or not. Reference in this regard may be made to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (Supra), wherein the subject matter for consideration before the Court was amendment to the
Development Control Rules as sanctioned by the State Government under the MRTP Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that the
power of amending the Development Control Regulations is a legislative function and therefore, such power has to be viewed as repository of
legislative power. It has been held in the said judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that while exercising legislative functions, unless there is
unreasonableness or arbitrariness, it is not open for the court to interfere.
20. It is also apposite at this juncture to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramdas (supra). The said matter
related to challenge to a Notification issued by the State Government under Section 37(2) of the MRTP Act, whereby modifications in the
Development Plan for the city of Nagpur with certain conditions were sanctioned. Ramdas (supra) refers to the judgment in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation (supra) and it has been opined that the delegated legislation cannot be questioned for violation of the principles of natural justice
in its making except where the Statute itself provides for that requirement. Ramdas (supra) also relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in KT Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Another Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2011 SC 3430, wherein it has been held that the legislature or its delegate is not
legally obliged to give any reasons for its action while discharging its legislative functions. The observations made by the Division Bench of this Court
in paragraph 43 of the judgment in the case of Ramdas (supra) is extracted hereinbelow:
“43. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court consisting of Hon'ble Seven Judges, in the case of M/s. Prag Ice and Oil Mills
and another .vs. Union of India reported in (1978) 3 SCC 459 was considering a challenge to the Mustard Oil (Price Control) Order, 1977
â€" a subordinate legislation enacted by the Central Government in exercise of powers vested in it under Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act. It will be appropriate to refer to the following observations of Their Lordships:
“71. To sum up, it seems to us impossible to accept the contention of the petitioners that the impugned Price Control Order is an act of
hostile discrimination against them or that it violates their right to property or their right to do trade or business. The petitioners have taken
us into the minutest details of the mechanism of their trade operations and they have attempted to demonstrate in relation thereto that a
factor here or a factor there which ought to have been taken into account while fixing the price of mustard oil has been ignored. Dealing
with a similar argument it was observed in Metropolis Theater Company v. City of Chicago(1) that to be able to find fault with a law is not
to demonstrate its invalidity.
It may seem unjust and oppressive, yet be free from judicial interference. The problems of government are practical ones and may justify,
if they do not require, rough accommodations, illogical, it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed.
What is best is not always discernible; the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of government are not subject
to our judicial review. It is only its palpably arbitrary exercises which can be declared void....
The Parliament having entrusted the fixation of prices to the expert judgment of the Government, it would be wrong for this Court, as was
done by common consent in Premier Automobiles to examine each and every minute detail pertaining to the Governmental decision. The
Government, as was said in Permien Basin Area Rate Cases, is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by particular
circumstances and the price control can be declared unconstitutional only if it is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or demonstrably
irrelevant to the policy which the legislature is free to adopt. The interest of the producer and the investor is only one of the variables in the
constitutional calculus of reasonableness' and Courts ought not to interfere so long as the exercise of Governmental power to fix fair
prices is broadly within a ""zone of reasonableness'. If we were to embark upon an examination of the desperate contentions raised before
us on behalf of the contending parties we have no doubt that we shall have exceeded our narrow and circumscribed authority.â€
21. It is also to be noticed that nature of inquiry with respect to consideration of objections furnished by the members of the general public to the draft
Master Plan is also limited in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Cynamide India Ltd.
& Anr. (1987) 2 SCC 720, reference of which has been given in Ramdas (supra). Paragraph 45 of the Ramdas (supra) is extracted here in below:
“45. It will also be appropriate to refer to the observations of Their Lordships of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and
another vs. Cynamide India Ltd. and another reported in (1987) 2 SCC 720.
“6. Occasionally the legislature directs the subordinate legislating body to make 'such enquiry as it think fit' before making the
subordinate legislation. In such a situation, while such enquiry by the subordinate legislating body as it deems fit is a condition precedent to
the subordinate legislation, the nature and the extent of the enquiry is in the discretion of the subordinate legislating body and the
subordinate legislation is not open to question on the ground that the enquiry was not as full as it might have been. The provision for 'such
enquiry as it thinks fit' is generally an enabling provision, intended to facilitate the subordinate legislating body to obtain relevant
information from all and whatever source and not intended to vest any right in anyone other than the subordinate legislating body. It is the
sort of enquiry which the legislature itself may cause to be made before legislating, an enquiry which will not confer any right an anyone.â€
(emphasis supplied).
22. The Division Bench in Ramdas (supra) has further held that it is not open for this Court to question the inquiry conducted by the authority
concerned while exercising its legislative powers to find out as to whether the inquiry was not as full as it might have been. The Division Bench
further observes that the “only permissible inquiry would be as to whether the inquiry as\ contemplated under the provisions was in fact conducted
by it or not?†Paragraph Nos.47, 48 and 49 of the Ramdas (supra) read as under:
“47. It could thus be seen that it will not be open for this Court to question the inquiry conducted by the Authority, while exercising its
legislative powers to find out as to whether the enquiry was not as full as it might have been. The only permissible inquiry would be, as to
whether the inquiry as contemplated under the provisions was in fact conducted by it or not. In view of paragraph 4 in the said Judgment,
the only inquiry that would be permissible for this Court, would be as to whether the policy and factors are present in the mind of the
authorities exercising powers or not, as to whether relevant considerations have gone in and irrelevant considerations are kept out of
determination while exercising powers or not.
48. In our considered view it will, therefore, not be possible to accept the contention of the petitioners, that the State Government ought to
have taken into consideration, the detailed objections as raised by the petitioners and recorded reasons for not accepting the said
objections prior to issuing the impugned notification. As already discussed by us hereinabove, perusal of the file would reveal that the State
Government has taken into consideration, all the relevant factors. Perusal of the file would reveal that the objection raised by the parties
and comments thereto by the Planning Authority were very much available, in the nature of report submitted by the Commissioner. The views
of various Authorities including the Director of Town Planning were also very much available before the State Government. The minutes of
meeting of Heritage Committee were taken into consideration by the State Government. Not only that, but specific query was made to the
Commissioner of Nagpur Municipal Corporation, as to whether it was feasible to maintain width of road to 24 meters, without affecting the
Heritage structure of Murlidhar temple, Kelibag temple and Gujar gateway. The Commissioner of Nagpur Municipal Corporation has
accordingly replied vide his communication dt.3.10.2013 stating therein that it was possible to maintain width of said road to 24 meters
after making certain changes. The said have also been considered by the State Government while taking final decision. Not only that, but
the impugned notification itself imposes a condition that the heritage structure of Murlidhar temple, Kelibag temple and Gujar gateway shall
be kept intact, while widening the said road as per the plan width.
49. It will be appropriate to refer to the following observations of Their Lordships in the case of State of T.N. and another vs. P.
Krishnamurthy and Others (cited supra). They are as under:
“15. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a subordinate legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks
it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recognized that a subordinate legislation can be challenged under any of the following grounds:
(a) Lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate legislation.
(b) Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
(c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India.
(d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act.
(e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment.
(f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where the court might well say that the legislature never intended to give authority
to make such rules).â€
“16. The court considering the validity of a subordinate legislation, will have to consider the nature, object and scheme of the enabling
Act, and also the area over which power has been delegated under the Act and then decide whether the subordinate legislation conforms to
the parent statute. Where a rule is directly inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the statute, then, of course, the task of the court is
simple and easy. But where the contention is that the inconsistency or nonconformity of the rule is not with reference to any specific
provision of the enabling Act, but with the object and scheme of the parent Act, the court should proceed with caution before declaring
invalidity. â€
23. It is, thus, clear that there is presumption in favour of the constitutionality or validity of subordinate legislation and the burden is upon the Petitioners
to challenge it to show that it is invalid.
24. Thus, from the discussions made above it is clear that the scope of judicial scrutiny or judicial review by this Court under Article 226 to subordinate
legislation (in the present case, of the Master Plan) is limited to the extent of finding as to whether the procedure as given in the statute has been
followed or not.
25. If we examine the submissions made by the Petitioners in this case, what we find is that there is no assertion that the procedure as given in
Sections 21 to 31 of the MRTP Act has not been followed. The allegation, rather, is that while considering the objections and the reports submitted by
the authority concerned as contemplated in Section 26 and 28 of the MRTP Act, the objections and the reports have not been given due weightage.
The scope of scrutiny in such matters, as observed above, is confined to ascertaining as to whether the procedure as given in the MRTP Act has been
followed or not. On the basis of the material available on record of these two PIL Petitions, what we find is that the provisions of Sections 21 to 31 of
the MRTP Act have been followed, inasmuch as, that first of all, a declaration of intention to prepare a Development Plan was made under Section 23
with appointment of Town Planning Officer in terms of Section 24 and thereafter the survey was conducted and existing land use map was also
prepared in terms of section 25 of the MRTP Act. After preparation of existing land use map the draft Development Plan was prepared and a notice
was published in the official gazette inviting objections from the citizenry. It is also to be seen that the objections to the draft Development Plan and
the report submitted by the Planning Committee were considered as per the requirement of Section 28(3) and (4) of the MRTP Act and it is only
thereafter that the draft Development Plan was submitted to the State Government by the Planning Authority under Section 30, seeking its approval /
sanction. The State Government, thereafter, vide impugned Notification and Corrigendum issued thereto has accorded its sanction to the draft
Development Plan under Section 31 of the MRTP Act with certain modifications which is permissible as the State Government has been empowered
to sanction the draft Development Plan with or without modification under Section 31 of the Act.
26. At this juncture, it is noticed that Section 31 of the MRTP Act provides that on receipt of the draft Development Plan from the Planning Authority
the State Government may consult the Director of Town Planning and accordingly, forward the Notification to be published in the Official Gazette. It
further provides that the Government may sanction the draft Development Plan either without modification or subject to such modifications as it may
consider proper. Section 31 also empowers the State to return the draft Development Plan to the Planning Authority for modifying the plan as it may
direct. The State Government has even been vested with the powers to refuse to accord sanction and direct the Planning Authority to prepare a fresh
Development Plan. Section 31 of the MRTP Act is quoted hereunder:
“31. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, and not later than six months from the date of receipt of such plan from the Planning
Authority, or as the case may be, from the said Officer, the State Government may, after consulting the Director of Town Planning by
notification in the Official Gazette sanction the draft Development Plan submitted to it for the whole area, or separately for any part
thereof, either without modification, or subject to such modifications as it may consider proper or return the draft Development Plan to the
Planning Authority or as the case may be, the said Officer for modifying the plan as it may direct or refuse to accord sanction and direct the
Planning Authority or the said Officer to prepare a fresh Development Plan:
Provided that, the State Government may, if it thinks fit, whether the said period has expired or not, extend from time to time, by notification
in the Official Gazette, the period for sanctioning the draft Development Plan or refusing to accord sanction thereto, by such further period
not exceeding,â€
(i) twenty-four months, in the aggregate, in case, the area of such Development Plan falls in the jurisdiction of a Metropolitan Planning
Committee constituted under the Maharashtra Metropolitan Planning Committees (Constitutions and Functions) (Continuance of Provisions)
Act, 1999;
(ii) twelve months, in the aggregate, in any other case, as may be specified in such notification.
Provided further that, where the modifications proposed to be made by the State Government or submitted by the Planning Authority under
section 30 and proposed to be approved by the State Government without any further change are of a substantial nature with respect to the
draft Development Plan published under section 26, the Government shall publish a notice in the Official Gazette and also in not less than
two local newspapers inviting objections and suggestions from any person in respect of the proposed modifications within a period of one
month, from the date of such notice.
Provided also that, if the Government does not publish its decision by notification in the Official Gazette, regarding sanctioning the draft
Development Plan submitted to it, for the whole area, or separately for any part thereof, either without modification, or subject to such
modifications as it may consider proper, or return the draft Development Plan to the Planning Authority, or as the case may be, the said
Officer for modifying the plan as it may direct or refuse to accord sanction and direct the Planning Authority or the said Officer to prepare
a fresh Development Plan, within the period under this section, such draft Development Plan shall be deemed to have been sanctioned as
submitted to the Government under section 30, on the date immediately following the date of expiry of the period under this section:
Provided also that, where any modification submitted by the Planning Authority or, as the case may be, the said Officer, under section 30 is
of substantial nature with respect to the draft Development Plan published under section 26, such modification shall not be deemed to have
been sanctioned and the Government shall publish a notice regarding such modifications of substantial nature and the provisions relating
to publication of the notice in the Official Gazette and two local newspapers for obtaining suggestions and objections as stipulated in the
second proviso, shall apply.
(2) The State Government may appoint an officer of rank not below that of a Group A officer and direct him to hear any such person in
respect of such objections and suggestions and submit his report thereon to the State Government within one year from the date of
publication of notice under second proviso to sub-section (1).
(3) The State Government shall before according sanction to the draft Development Plan take into consideration such objections and
suggestions and the report of the officer.
Provided that, the time-limits as provided in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not apply for according sanction to the modifications published
under sub-section (1):
Provided further that, the Government shall take final decision regarding such modifications within one year from the date of receipt of the
report from the officer appointed under sub-section (2).
(4) The State Government shall fix in the notification under sub-section (1) a date not earlier than one month from its publication on which
the final Development Plan shall come into operation.
(4A) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, delegate all the powers and functions under this section to the
Director of Town Planning in such cases and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification.
(5) If a Development Plan contains any proposal for the designation of any land for a purpose specified in clauses (b) and (c) of section
22, and if such land does not vest in the Planning Authority, the State Government shall not include that in the Development Plan, unless it
is satisfied that the Planning Authority will be able to acquire such land by private agreement or compulsory acquisition not later than ten
years from the date on which the Development Plan comes into operation.
(6) A Development Plan which has come into operation shall be called the “final Development Plan†and shall, subject to the provisions
of this Act, be binding on the Planning Authority.â€
27. Once the draft Development Plan is submitted under Section
30 by the Planning Authority seeking sanction of the State Government, before according its sanction as per Section 31 of the MRTP Act, the State
Government is not under any obligation to provide any opportunity of hearing to consider the objections afresh. The phrase occurring in Section 31 is
“as it may consider properâ€. Thus, it is for the State Government to sanction the draft Development Plan if it considers it proper, with or without
modification. The State Government is also, thus, empowered to return the draft Development Plant to the Planning Authority with a direction to
modify the same if it considers it proper. It may also refuse to grant the sanction if it is considered proper by the State Government so to do with a
direction to the Planning Authority to prepare a fresh Development Plan.
28. The true purport of Section 31 of the Act, if analyzed in the light of the law as discussed above, is that it is the State Government which is the
repository of the exclusive power to either accord sanction to the draft Development Plan submitted to it by the Planning Authority or to return it with
direction to modify it or to even refuse the sanction with the direction to prepare a fresh plan. In such matters, in our opinion, since it is the State
Government which is the exclusive repository of power, the grounds on which challenge in this petition to the impugned Notification and the
Corrigendum issued thereto has been made, are not tenable.
29. We may also note that for challenging any legislation or subordinate legislation, unless its unreasonableness or arbitrariness is established, no fault
can be found with such an exercise, provided the procedure for taking out such subordinate legislation has been followed. In absence of any
substantiated averment in the Writ Petition relating to any flaw in the procedure followed by the Respondents as stipulated in the MRTP Act,
challenge to the impugned Notification and the Corrigendum issued thereto by the State Government sanctioning the draft Development Plan for the
city of Ulhasnagar under Section 31 of the MRTP Act is bound to fail.
30. Resultantly, we find that PIL Petitions are devoid of merits which are hereby dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
