Kokila @ Surekha Ashokrao Pinjarkar v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Urban Development, Mumbai

21-wp-2811-2020.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2811 of 2020 Sau. Kokila @ Surekha Ashokrao Pinjarkar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary Department of Urban Development Mantralaya,

...Respondents

Mumbai and another Shri U.J. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. K.S. Joshi, Incharge GP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATED : 25 FEBRUARY 2021 P.C.:

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

The Petitioner is resident of Akot, District Akola. A development plan for the Akot city was published under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966 (for short "the Act of 1966") and came into force from 1 September 1994.

3.

A draft revised development plan was prepared by the planning authority and the objections were invited under Section 31(2) of nd.thawre

21-wp-2811-2020.odt the Act of 1966. The Petitioner, amongst others, submitted their objections.

4.

This Petition is filed for a direction to the Respondents to give a copy of the out come of the hearing and for the copy of the report. The prayer is misconceived. The hearing under Section 31(2) of the Act of 1966 is not a quasi judicial proceeding but it is only a consultative process, so that views of the residents in respect of the draft development plan can be understood. With these views a report is submitted to the State Government. Therefore, there is no question of giving a copy of the 'Order' to the Petitioner and therefore, the request has been rightly refused by the impugned order.

5.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.] [NITIN JAMDAR, J.] nd.thawre