SUDHIR MISHRA Vs. CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT PLANNING COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decision rendered in this writ petition shall also govern disposal of other writ petition being W.P. No. 382 of 2004 as both these writs are more or less identical in nature. This petition is filed by three petitioners as public interest litigation claiming following reliefs as are set out in detail in relief clause 7(i) to (vi):

(2.) PERUSAL of petition would indicate that the main grievance of these petitioners is against the action taken by the respondents in respect of what is called ' 'Re-densification Scheme" evolved for Indore City. According to petitioners, it is inter alia, in violation of Master Plan. It is this issue which is detailed in the petition with reference to the provisions of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and the requirement of Master Plan. The petitioner have also made attempt to point out certain specific breaches by showing some constructions undertaken by the parties which according to petitioners should not be allowed being in violation of the requirement of the Act/Rules and Plan. This, in substance, is the gist of petition seeking aforementioned reliefs not for the petitioners in persona but essentially for the residents of Indore as a whole. On notice being issued to the respondents, the State has not made any attempt to contest the locus of these petitioners who are respectable personalities of Indore having a good past record to their credit in their respective field. According to State, a policy decision is taken to constitute a committee for examining the suggestions/objections raised by the public at large in this regard. According to State, this committee so constituted shall not only examine the suggestion in respect of one city but also for several other cities. It is also stated that pursuant to this decision, the State has constituted the committee by order dated 6.10.2004. A copy of this order is placed on record. It does appear that the object of this committee is to examine the objections/suggestions made/offered by any citizen/resident of the area in question and then to examine as to whether such objections/suggestions are capable of acceptance in toto or not and if so, whether any amendment is needed in the light of such objection/suggestion ? In our opinion, in the first instance, it is not for the Court to probe into the worth of objections/suggestions raised by the petitioners by means of this petition but it is for the committee so constituted by the State to examine the objections and make necessary amendments, if required. Even otherwise, it is essentially the job of experts in the field to go into these questions and then take a decision.