Bench disposed of PIL challenging Draft Development Plan 2014-2034 as premature because objections period was ongoing and planning process not yet complete.
petition disposed keeping rights and contentions of petitioners open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ospill42
1
ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO.42 OF 2015
Vanashakti and others
vs.
Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai and others
...Petitioners
...Respondents
Ms Gayatri Singh a/w Zaman Ali for the Petitioners
Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Senior Counsel a/w Ms Trupti Puranik
for BMC
Mr.M.R.Prajapati a/w Rui Rodrigues for the
respondent No.2
Ms Sharmila Deshmukh for respondent No.3
Mr.G.W.Mattos, AGP for State
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
C.V.BHADANG, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 20, 2015
P.C.:
1We have perused the prayers made in this
petition. In substance, the petitioners want to
challenge the Draft Development Plan 2014-2034 for
the city of Mumbai and existing land use maps
prepared for the purpose of preparation of the said
Draft Development Plan.
2By a notification dated 25th February 2015
issued by the Municipal Corporation, the objections
and suggestions have been invited from the members
of the public in respect of the Draft Development
Plan of Greater Mumbai 2014-2035. On plain reading
of the said notification, it appears to us that the
said notification is issued under sub-section 1 of
2 ospill42
section 26 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act,1966 (for short the `MRTP Act'). As
per sub-section (1) of section 26 of the MRTP Act,
the Mumbai Municipal Corporation which is the
Planning Authority has invited the objections and
suggestions to the Draft Development Plan prepared
by it. After the time fixed for filing objections
and suggestions is over, the steps will have to be
taken in accordance with sub-section (1) of section
28 of the MRTP Act. Sub-section (2) of section 28
requires the Planning Officer or the Officer
appointed by the Municipal Corporation to forward
all objections and suggestions received by it to the
Planning Committee. Under sub-section 3 of section
28, the Planning Committee, on receipt of all
objections and suggestions is required to make an
enquiry after giving a reasonable opportunity of
being heard to any person including the
representatives of the Government Department who may
have filed any objection or made any suggestions.
Thereafter, the Planning Committee is required to
submit a report. Only after such report is
submitted, the Planning Authority after considering
the report has to publish the Draft Development
Plan. Even at this stage, the Planning Authority
can make modifications and changes in the Draft
Development Plan notified in accordance with sub-
section (1) of section 26. Thereafter, under sub-
section (1) of section 30 of the MRTP Act, the Draft
Development Plan is required to be submitted to the
State Government for sanction. Under sub-section
(1) of section 31, the State Government has wide
ospill42
3
powers. The State Government may reject the Draft
Development Plan or the State Government may
sanction only a part of the Draft Development Plan,
the State Government may make modifications or
changes of substantial nature in the Draft
Development Plan after publishing a notification
under the second proviso to section 31. The State
Government has also a power to direct the Planning
Authority to prepare a fresh Development Plan. In
short, as of today, even the Draft Development Plan
is not finalised by the Planning Authority. The
same can be finalised only after the Planning
Committee hears the objections and suggestions.
Even assuming that the Draft Development Plan is
approved by the Planning Authority as it is and is
submitted to the State Government, the power to
reject the entire Draft Development Plan and even a
power to return the Draft Development Plan is vested
in the State Government. Therefore, the substantive
challenge to the Draft Development Plan need not be
entertained at this stage. Time for filing
objections and suggestions is not yet over. The
petitioners can always file objections and
suggestions. The challenge is premature.
3As far as the prayer clause(c) is concerned,
the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 states
that CZMP plan is not yet finalised.
4If the petitioners raise objections including
the objections as regards illegality or defects in
existing land use map prepared as per section 24 of
4 ospill42
the MRTP Act, the Planning Committee and thereafter
the Planning Authority is bound to look into the
said aspect.
5Subject to what is observed above, at this
stage, this petition need not be kept pending. By
keeping all the rights and contentions of the
petitioners open, we dispose of the petition.
(C.V.BHADANG,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a prematurity challenge to the Draft Development Plan can be entertained while objections and suggestions period is pending.
Whether the Planning Authority has finalised the Draft Development Plan prior to State Government sanction.
Whether this petition needs to be kept pending pending the conclusion of the statutory objection process.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vanashakti and others
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
A.S. Oka
C.V. Bhadang
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court