ANAHITA PANDOLE Vs. STATE OPF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, is invoked in order that there be an adjudication into the lawfulness of hoardings of heritage buildings and heritage precincts in Mumbai. The jurisdiction of the Court was initially invoked in a petition filed in the public interest complaining of a complete failure on the part of law enforcing agencies-particularly the Municipal administration to discharge their statutory duty to regulate and control the proliferation of hoardings. According to the petitioner, the Municipal authorities had totally failed to duly and lawfully administer the provisions of sections 328 and 328-A of the Municipal corporation Act, 1888. The grievance before the Court was that there was a failure to duly implement the provisions of Development Control Regulation 67 that was sanctioned by the State Government so as to come into force with effect from 1st June, 1995.

(2.) DEVELOPMENT Control Regulations constitute the cornerstone of urban planning. Section 22 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 enunciates that a development plan shall indicate the manner in which the use of land in the area of the planning authority shall be regulated and the manner in which the development of land shall be carried out. By virtue of Clause (I) thereto, the development plan is to provide for the "preservation of features, structures of places of historical, natural, architectural and scientific interest and educational value and of heritage buildings and heritage precincts. " That is now a matter of legislative policy; policy which is manifestly in the public interest. Regulation 67 labelled not inappropriately, in keeping with its contents as the Heritage Regulation, 1995 inter alia applies to buildings, artefacts, structures and precincts of historical, aesthetical, architectural or cultural value listed by the State Government. Heritage buildings are classified into three categories-Grade I, Grade II and Grade III buildings. An expert body the Heritage Conversation Committee has been constituted in order to discharge obligations conferred upon it by the regulation which has the force of law under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town planning Act, 1966. The Heritage Conservation Committee consists of experts with demonstrable credentials, consisting as it does of engineers, architects, historians and environmentalists. Regulation 67 (2) imposes restrictions on development, redevelopment and repairs of listed heritage buildings and precincts save and except with the prior written permission of the Municipal commissioner. The Municipal Commissioner is directed to act on the advice of and in consultation with the Heritage Conservation Committee and it is only in exceptional cases for reasons to be recorded in writing that the Commissioner may overrule the recommendations of the Committee. A list of heritage buildings and precincts consisting of 633 entries has been notified. The judgment of the Court dated 19th April, 2003: the role of the Municipal Commissioner vis a vis the Heritage Conservation Committee.

(3.) WHILE exercising its jurisdiction in the petition which has been filed before the Court in the public interest, several orders were passed by this court on 17th April, 2002; 3rd May, 2002; 2nd September, 2002 and 1st october, 2002. The Court was thereafter, moved in a batch of matters by hoarding owners and by persons claiming an entitlement to display advertisements and hoardings situated on heritage buildings. The challenge preferred before the Court was dealt with in a judgment and order of this Division Bench dated 19th April, 2003. We, inter alia, held that the permission which is granted to erect a hoarding structure under section 328 or section 328-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 is not a permission in perpetuity and the law as it governs on the date of an application for renewal must apply to the grant of permission by the Municipal Commissioner.