JAYANT ACHYUT SATHE versus JOSEPH BAIN DSOUZA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 566 · Decided: 14-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
JAY ANT ACHYUT SA THE 
v. 
JOSEPH BAIN D'SOUZA AND ORS. 
JULY 14, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Practice and procedure-Writ petition challenging legality of 
provisions-High Court appointed Committees to look into several aspects-
C Challenged to-Held: High Court did not decide the basic issue as to 
legality of provisions-It is also not clear whether writ petition was disposed 
or not and as to how Committee views were to be implemented-Thus, High 
Court directed to examine the issue-Development Control Regulations, 
1991-Regulation 33(7). 
D 
Respondents filed public interest litigation challenging the legality of 
E 
Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 as amended 
in 1999. High Court appointed some Committees·to look into several aspects. 
Hence, the present appeal. 
Adjourning the matter with the direction to High Court, the Court 
HELD: It is not clear as to whether the writ petition has been disposed 
of by the High Court or not. There is no specific indication in that regard. It 
is also not clear whether after the Committees appointed expressed its views, 
what was the follow up action to be taken and by whom. High Court has not 
dealt with the basic issues raised in the writ petition as to whether the 
F Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 as amended 
in 1999 suffered from any infirmity. Therefore, the High Court is directed to 
examine the challenge to Regulation 33(7) and also maintainability of the Writ 
Petitions. (568-D-F( 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2970 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2005 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 3189/2004. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 2971, 2972, 2973, 2974, 2975, 2976, 2977, 2978 and 2979/2006. 
H 
s~ 
, -
JAY ANT ACllYUT SA THE v. JOSEPH BAIN D'SOUZA [PASA Y AL J.] 567 
R.F. Nariman, Dushyant Dave. C.A. Sundaram, S. Bhatnagar, Indra A 
Sawhney, H. Devarajan, Prashant Narain, P.N. Gupta, Aman Vachher, Yadunath 
Choudhary, Ashutosh Dubey, Poonam Nagpal. J. Rais, P.N. Puri, Subrat Birla, 
S.C. Birla, Pramod Saxena, Joguin F. Reis, Anuradha Rustagi, S.V. Deshpande 
and Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant. 
G.E. Vahanvati, Sol. General Ashok H. Desai, S. Diwan, K.K. Singhvi, B 
M.L. Venna. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, U.U. Lalit, Pallav Shishodia. Ravindra Keshavrao 
Adsure, Gautam Patel, Indu Malhtora, Saveetha Sinha, Vikram Mehta, Shilpa 
Gupta, Vikas Mehta, S.H. Uijainwala, Rahaul Gupta, Nupur Kanungo, Bhargava 
V. Desai, Chirag M. Shroff, Mukesh Kumar, M.N. Shroff, Karuna Nundy and 
Goodwill Indeevar for the Respondents. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted in each case. 
Challenge in each of these appeals is to the legality of the judgment 
rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Bombay in a D 
Public Interest Litigation. filed by three citizens essentially questioning legality 
of Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 (in short 
the 'Regulations'). These Regulations came into force with effect from 20th 
March, 1991. According to writ petitioners it is in essence delegated legislation 
under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short the 
'Act'). The writ petitioners questioned the amendment brought in 1999 which E 
provided for a minimum Floor Space Index (in short 'FSI') of2.5 plus Additional 
FSI required for rehabilitation of existing tenants plus incentive FSI on several 
grounds. 
The present appellant resisted the claim. 
The High Court instead of deciding the core issue has by the impugned 
judgment appointed some Committees to look into several aspects which 
according to it had relevance for the basic and recurring problems. 
In support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants submitted 
F 
that the High Court instead of deciding the basic issue has gone into G 
unconnected matters, has lost sight of the fact that the views of the Committees 
appointed really will be of no consequence and would not throw any light 
on the legality or otherwise of the provisions which were challenged. The 
views of the Committees cannot be a substitute for a decision of the Court 
and in fact the High Court has not made it clear as to what will be the effect 
of the views of the Committees appointed and how they are to be implemented H 
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
~ 
A and, in short, whether the Committees can deal with the legality o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.