Vanashakti Public Trust And Another v. Municipal Commissioner, Mcgm And 3 Others
ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO.42 OF 2015 Vanashakti and others
...Petitioners
vs.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others
...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.:
We 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.
By 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
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 subsection (1) of section 26. Thereafter, under subsection (1) of section 30 of the MRTP Act, the Draft Development Plan is required to be submitted to the State Government for sanction.
(1) of section 31, the State Government has wide
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.
As far as the prayer clause(c) is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 states that CZMP plan is not yet finalised.
If the petitioners raise objections including the objections as regards illegality or defects in existing land use map prepared as per section 24 of
the MRTP Act, the Planning Committee and thereafter the Planning Authority is bound to look into the said aspect.
Subject 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.) (A.S.OKA,J.)