SHANTI G PATEL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein before the High Court, inter alia, sought for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus declaring Section 37 (1 AA) of the maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, 'the MRTP Act') as violative of the Constitution of India and Items (1) and (2) of Twelfth Schedule thereof.

(2.) The High Court refused to enter into the aforementioned question holding, inter alia, that in absence of a comprehensive challenge by laying proper foundation therefor in the pleadings, as to how merely challenging the said provision would suffice when power to issue directions is conferred under the MRTP Act and other provisions of the Maharashtra Metropolitan Planning Committee Act, it would not be proper to go thereinto.

(3.) It was furthermore observed :"section 37 (1) read properly and as a whole confers an independent power on the State government to issue directions to the planning authority to set in motion the procedure for effecting modification of any part of, or any proposal made in the final development plan, provided of course, it is of such a nature that it will not change the character of the development plan. Section 37 (1aa) although opening with a non obstante clause clearly postulates that if the State Government is satisfied that in public interest it is necessary to urgently carry out a modification of any part of, or any proposal made in a final development plan, then it can on it's own publish a notice in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as may be determined by it, to invite objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the proposed modification. Such notice would be served on the planning authority in addition to persons affected by the proposed modification. It is only to enable the government to issue a notice for inviting objections and suggestions that the government thought it fit to refer to and take recourse to the amended provisions. . "