BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG. CO.LTD. versus BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 920 · Decided: 07-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG. CO.LTD. 
v. 
BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP AND ORS. 
MARCH 7, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 : Sections 2(7), 
2(9), 2(9-A), 2(13AJ. 2(27), 14, 21, 22, 37, 38, 43, 45 and 159-Maharashtra 
C Development Control Regulations. 1991-Regulations 2(28), 2(48), 3, 9, 21, 
32, 34, 51, 56-58: 
Closure of Collon Textile Mills in Bombay due to continued strike by 
workers-Lands of such mil fr-- Development of-Amendment of Development 
Regulation 58-Government !votijication clarifYing scope thereof-Validity 
D of-Held, not ultra vires Section 37 of the 1966 Act-Nor violative of the 
Constitution-Bo1h Regulation 58 and the clanficatory Notification not 
contrary lo principles governing environmental aspects including principles 
of sustainable and planned development vis-a-vis Article 21 of the 
Constitution-Sick col/on mills taken over by NTC-Subsequently NTC itself 
becoming sick-In terms of Rehabilitation Scheme framed by BIFR, NTC 
E selling some of !he mills-Validity of--Sick lnriustrial Companies (Special 
Provisions) Act, 1985---Sections 3(e), 15, 32-----Constitution of India, 1950, 
Articles 14, 21 and 48A. 
Maharashtra Development Control Regulations, 1991 : 
F 
Regulation 58--Judicial Review of the Regulations-Permissibility of-
Held, judicial review permissible against legislative policy----Constitution of 
India, 1950, Article 226. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
G 
Article 226--Writ petition-Filing of-Laches and delay-Held, writ 
petition not to be dismissed only on ground of delay. 
PIL--Scope of-Explained 
H 
920 
• 
• .. 
-
• • 
1~ 
' 
\c 
•• 
,.l. 
> ' 
t' 
BOMBAY DYEING AND MFG. CO.LTD. v. BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP 
92 J 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Interpretation of Act and Regulations made thereunder-Doctrine of 
contemporaneous exposition-Discussed-Maharashtra Regional and Town 
Planning Act, 1966 and Development Control Regulations made thereunder. 
Doctrines: · 
Doctrine of contemporaneous exposition-Applicability of-Discussed. 
The question involved in these appeals is whether any synthesis 
between environmental aspects and building regulation vis-a-vis the scheme 
floated by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) 
in terms of the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special 
Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) herein is possible. 
' 
On behalf of the Appellants and supporting respondents, it was 
contended that Development Control Regulation 58 of 1991 (DCR 58), as 
amended in 2001, would be applicable not only to a sick mill but also to a 
closed mill being unviable which had opted for revival/ modernization/ 
shifting, the original DCR 58 being not invalid, the mere grant of 
additional benefits would not make it ultra vires; that the State could not 
be said to have ignored various conflicting objectives while carrying out 
the amendment in DCR 58; that the High Court, in exercise of its 
jurisdiction of judicial review, could not have interfered with a policy 
decision of the State; that the High Court committed a manifest error in 
holding that the amended version of DCR 58 vis-a-vis the term 'open space' 
would have the same meaning as was contemplated under DCR 58of1991; 
that the High Court failed to appreciate that reading down of DCR.58 
was impermissible in law; that the High Court ought to have taken into 
consideration the past experience of the State necessitating amendment 
of DCR; that the High Court failed to take note of the fact that the 
committees appointed by the State also made recommendations that the 
mill owners would be allowed to develop their lands; that two different 
interpretations of DCR 58 having been found by the High Court to be possible, 
it could not have arrived at a conclusion that clarificatory notification dated 
28.03.2003 amounted to an amendment of'the Regulation and, thus, void; that 
the impugned judgment is wholly unsustainable as several irrelevant factors, 
e.g. deluge in the city of Born bay in 2005, were taken into consideration for 
the purpose of interpretation of DCR 58; that the findings of the High Court 
would lead to a radical discrimination between cotton textile mills and other 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
922 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006) 2 S.C.R. 
A industries which being not based on any rational criteria renders it 
unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; that 
the High Court failed t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.