BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions under Article 226 challenge what is described as illegal and unconstitutional de-reservation of a large number of plots of land in Greater Bombay.

(2.) THE Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (Act or MRTP Act) is legislation providing for the planned development and use of land in regions established for that purpose. The Act has been brought into force in various parts of the State including Greater Bombay. The first Development plan for Greater Bombay was sanctioned by the State Government in 1966. Rules to control the development (DCR) were framed and sanctioned the next year. The Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) which is the Planning Authority (P. A.) declared on 13-1-1977 its intention to revise the plan aforementioned. The revised draft plan together with the revised, DCR were submitted for sanction to the State Government in 1985. Sanction has not yet been accorded. Pending consideration of the draft revised plan, the State Government has directed the BMC to permit variations in the use of different plots the number whereof is said to range between 285 to 600. The variations span extremes covering total release to minor changes in the administering department gives near about 12 species of change of user. These are:---

(3.) PETITIONERS take exception to the directions given by the Governments to the BMC. It is contended that the directions pending the finalisation of the revised plan are illegal, without and in excess of jurisdiction vide the MRTP Act as also Article 14 of the Constitution. The directions amount to modifications of a substantial nature in the draft revised plan and the DCR. This attracts section 31 (1) of the Act and in particular its 2nd Proviso. No notice inviting objections and suggestions had been given whether in the gazette or local newspapers. The impugned directions could not be defended under section 154 as that section was not intended to negate the other provisions of the Act. Large scale dereservations would set at naught the very object of planned development as the directions would deprive the public of the stature conferred right to participate in the planning process. An oft-quoted justification for the de-reservation about the BMC not having adequate resources was clearly false. Bombay was overcrowded and existing public amenities like playgrounds, hospitals and schools etc. were inadequate to meet even the existing needs of the residents. Any further release of plots would gravely affect the life and comfort of millions. The dereservations were patently arbitrary as the State Government had left itself free to pick and choose plots for dereserving or refusal to dreserve. This was violative of Article 14. The reliefs sought are declarations that the impugned directions to dereserve are permit development are ultra vires the MRTP Act an Article 14 of the Constitution and injunctions restraining the Government from issuing such directions and the BMC acting in pursuance thereto. Pending the disposal of the petition the respondents be restrained from making illegal dereservations and permitting the directed developments Also sought in the same vein is a direction to give a list of plots dereserved with the names and addresses of the owners thereof. Both the petitions are about identical, though there are some differences in regard to instances of plots de-reserved and the joinder of two of the alleged beneficiaries in W. P. No. 1963 of 1989.