SEEMA SAVALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, waives notice for respondent Nos.1. Mr. More waives notice for respondent nos.2 and 3 and Mr. Ganbavale waives notice for respondent no.4. By consent, heard forthwith.

(2.) This petition takes exception to the resolution No.987 dated 20.8.2010 passed by the General Body of the respondent no.2 Corporation. On the basis of the said resolution, notice dated 6.10.2010 bearing No. 179, came to be issued by the respondent no.3, which was published in the local newspaper on 9.10.2010. The petitioner prays that the respondent nos.2 and 3 be directed to forthwith cancel and/or withdraw the said publication. The incidental relief claimed by the petitioner is to direct the respondent no.1 not to consider the proposal published and submitted by the respondent no.2 - Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, for further minor modification under Section 37(1) of the MRTP Act, 1966 on the basis of or on the strength of the impugned advertisement being Notice No.179 issued by respondent No.3, published in the local newspaper on 9.10.2010.

(3.) The principal grievance of the petitioner, who incidentally happens to be the Corporator in the respondent Corporation, is that, the Agenda no.17 issued for the General Body Meeting convened on 20.8.2010 was only to consider the subject of alignment of 18 meters road passing through Survey No.344, 345, 346 and shifting of garden, cultural centre and library in the concerned DP Plan. However, the General Body, in the adjourned meeting passed resolution not limited to that topic, but transcended beyond that subject and including in respect of policy matters regarding further modification of the D.C. Rules (No.2.5) under Section 37(1) and for reduction of premium to be charged for development proposals for use of TDR under BRTS Corridor. This was completely without authority of law. If that part of the said resolution was to be quashed and set aside, it would necessarily follow that all steps taken or intended to be taken on the basis of such resolution are non-est in law.