R USHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Habitat planning in Bihar has gone haywire. The concept of Town Planning has vanished. The Regional Development Authorities, whose primary job is to plan cities worth living in, have taken a ringside seat. Constructions go on unabated on a phenomenon known as "assumed deemed permission". There is a fine-tuned arrangement to present a building plan, and it does not matter whether it conforms to the law or not, submit it, then wait for a prescribed period to pass and thereafter assume that the plan has been passed. The construction goes on merrily meanwhile. By the time the construction has been completed, urban planning regulations are laughed upon, as if they were made for fools. The deemed permission clause was meant to be an exception to remedy bureaucratic red-tape it has become the normal style. These were aspects which were debated at the Bar of the Court in this matter.

(2.) A proposition was put before the Court that the Court may send a team anywhere in Patna to find out whether the buildings which have come up, particularly in the last three decades, have been constructed in compatibility with urban planning laws. It was also contended that the State or the Municipal authorities, whether the Corporations or the Development Authorities, may themselves report to the Court on how many violations of urban regulations and city planning concepts have taken place. It was submitted before the Court that in the cities of Bihar, Patna not excluded, the storm drain has disappeared, the sewage lines have been built over, the sidewalks do not exist, the set backs have been encroached upon, the height restriction has been violated, residential areas have disappeared and the whole city is an unauthorized bazaar. In these matters regardless of petitioners or respondents counsel have at least acknowledged, pointing to localities and construction work that is going on at present, that the Master Plans made for Patna have been trampled upon and permitted to gather dust. The Court was invited to see sections of the city and perceive for itself the violation of building laws by buildings constructed and the constructions in progress. The arguments have come thus far, that the Court is being told that while judges go home they may clearly see the violations of the building laws and the illegally constructed buildings. The theme of the arguments was that none are so blind, as those who have eyes but will not see. The contention continued that the Municipal authorities slept while the violations of building regulations went on and continues unabated.

(3.) When the proposition was put by the Court that the amended Constitution of India casts an obligation on the States that habitat planning is a discipline set by the Constitution. At the Bar there appeared to be ignorance. The Court pointed out that the Constitution mandated planning as an obligation of the State and participation of representatives of the people. District and Metropolitan planning, the Constitution requires to be taken up as a corporate venture, not as a corporation -sole by Administrators of superseded municipalities. In this regard the Court pointed out that the State needs to pay heed to Articles 243ZD, and 243ZE on district and metropolitan planning. The Constitution requires that there would be planning committees. For District planning, four fifths of the total number of members of such committees shall be elected from among elected members of the Panchayats and the Municipalities, and for Metropolitan planning, two -thirds of the members from amongst the elected members of the Municipalities and Chairpersons of the Panchayats. The Court asked the question whether this has been prescribed by the State of Bihar in the laws which control the planning and development of urban habitats. The Development Authorities may not have sanction to function without these obligations in the enactment which creates them. Counsel for respondents (aside their briefs) were at least frank enough to acknowledge that perhaps no one even saw these provisions. The Court pointed out that providing for municipal and civic matters is now a Constitutional obligation with people's participation. In this regard the Court pointed to the Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution to be read with Article 243W of the Constitution. In no uncertain terms, urban planning with people's participation is part of the democracy envisioned in the Constitution. Significant aspects to be noticed in the Twelfth Schedule are certain entries which refer to :