JANHIT MANCH THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT BHAGVANJI RAIYANI & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 860 · Decided: 14-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
860                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
JANHIT MANCH THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT BHAGVANJI
RAIYANI & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 10192 of 2010)
DECEMBER 14, 2018
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND
K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Government of Maharashtra
launched comprehensive slum rehabilitation scheme – Prayer in writ
petition inter alia to review the existing 1991 Regulations and the
Transferable Development Right (TDR) policy – Directions issued
by High Court – Held: High Court examined the issues raised in
the present lis  in detail and issued whatever directions were feasible,
keeping in mind the enormity of the problem – Local problems must
be attended to locally – High Court is a Constitutional Court –
State Court is best equipped to look into local matters, especially
where the area development and zoning regulations of the State or
the city are in question – The problems and solutions may vary from
State to State – It is really not for Supreme Court to sit as an appellate
court over these matters, unless some patent illegality is shown, or
it is shown that there is any contravention  of the constitutional
mandate – No such case made out herein – Maharashtra Regional
and Town Planning Act, 1966 – s.2(9A) – Development Control
Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991.
Doctrines/Principles – Principle of separation of powers –
Discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court had examined the matter in
such great detail. It is also appropriate to emphasise that local
problems must be attended to locally.  The High Court is a
Constitutional Court.  The State Court is best equipped to look
into local matters, especially where the area development and
zoning regulations of the State or the city are in question.  The
problems and solutions may vary from State to State.  It is really
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 860
860
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
861
not for this Court to sit as an appellate court over these matters,
unless some patent illegality is shown, or it is shown that there is
any contravention of the constitutional mandate. No such case
made out, here. Appellant No.2, appearing in-person on behalf of
the appellants, really sought to put forth what he thinks would be
best for the city. Thus, for example, pleas were raised, inter alia,
for post approval impact assessment on environment and not only
a prior environment impact assessment of the Development
Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 (DCR); that there
was no genuine endeavor to provide alternative accommodation
to slum dwellers, but it was only vote bank politics, as evidenced
by repeated extensions of deadlines for providing alternative
accommodations; that the new development plan continued to
offer Floor Space Index (FSI) incentive to land owners; that the
Commissioner exercises powers, in respect of FSI, almost as a
mandatory requirement rather than a discretionary exercise; that
there has been an increase in vehicular traffic in the city of
Mumbai; that the increase in FSI has led to an influx of population
in various regions in Mumbai; that the Pradhan Mantri Avas
Yojana Scheme providing ‘pucca ghar’ to the population would
result in further influx into Mumbai, etc.  [Paras 11, 12]
[868-A-F]
1.2 The elected government of the day, which has the
mandate of the people, is to take care of policy matters. There is
a democratic structure at different levels, starting from the level
of Village Panchayats, Nagar Palikas, Municipal Authorities,
Legislative Assemblies and the elected Parliament; each of them
has a role to perform.  In aspects, as presented in the instant
case, a consultative process is always helpful, and is one which
has already been undertaken. The philosophy of appellant no.2
cannot be transmitted as a mandatory policy of the government,
which is what would happen were a mandamus to be issued on
the prayers made.  Perspective of individuals may vary,  but if the
elected bodies which have policy formulation powers, is to be
superseded by the ideals of each individual, the situation would
be chaotic. The policies formulated and the legislations made,
unless they fall foul of the Constitution of India, cannot be
interfered with, at the behest of the appellants. The appellants
have completely missed this point. The High Court has already
JANHIT MANCH THR. ITS PRESIDENT BHAGVANJI RAIYANI v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
862      

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.