LexPUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION A v. PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. MAY 5, 2004 [S. RAJENDRA BABU, CJ. AND G.P. MATHUR, J.] B Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966-Section 37 -Submission for sanction of proposed amendments of Development Contr.ol Rules to State Government by Municipal Co1poration-State Government making some changes before sanction without calling for C objections/suggestions-Validity of~Held, the State Government has wide discretion to make minor changes within limits before sanction-On facts, since such changes were not proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable, they are valid. State Government issued a directive to appellant-Corporation under section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 to amend its Development Control Rules (DCR) in line with Bombay DCR. The appellant published proposed amendments ofDCR D in Official Gazette and invited objections and suggestions under section E 37(1) of the Act. The appellant submitted the proposed amendments to the State Government for sanction. The State Government, after making certain additions to the Rules, sanctioned the proposed amendments and notified the same. The respondents filed Writ Petilions before High Court challenging the additions as being beyond the powers ofthe State Government under section 37(2) of the Act. High F Court allowed the Writ Petitions. Hence the appeal by the appellant- Corporation. Allowing the appeals, the Court G HELD: I.I. Under section 37(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the Planning Authority, after inviting objections and suggestions regarding the proposed amendm<!nt and after giving notice to all affected persons, shall submit the proposed modification for sanction to the State Government. The deliberation H 207 208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A with the public before making the amendment is over at this stage. The State Government, thereafter, under Section 37(2) of the Act is given absolute liberty to make or not to make necessary inquiry before granting sanction. Again,, while according sanction, the State Government may do so with or without modifications. The State B Government could impose such conditions as it deem fit. It is also permissible for the State Government to refuse the sanction. This is the true meaning of the Section 37(2) of the Act. It is difficult to uphold the contrary interpretation given by the High Court. The main limitation for the State Government made under section 37(1) of the Act is that no authority can propose an amendment so as to C change the basic character of the development plan. The proposed amendment could only be minor within the limits of the development plan. And for such minor changes, it is only normal for the State Government to exercise a wide discretion, by keeping various relevant factors in mind. Again, if it is arbitrary or unreasonable, the same D could be challenged. [212-A-DI 1.2. The making of Development Control Rules (DCR) or amendment thereof are legislative functions. Therefore, section 37 of the Act has to be viewed as repository of legislative powers for effecting E amendments to OCR. That legislative power of amending OCR is delegated to State Government. The true interpretation of section 37(2) of the Act permits the State Government to make necessary mouifica!ions or put conditions while granting sanction. In section 37(2) of the Act, the legislature has not intended to provide for a public F hearing before according sanction. The procedure for making such amendment is provided in section 37. Delegated legislation cannot be questioned for violating principles of natural justice in its making except when the statute itself provides for that requirement. Where the legislature has not chosen to provide for any notice or hearing, no one can insist upon it and it is not permissible to read natural justice into G such legislative activity. Moreover, a provision for 'such inquiry as it may consider necessary' by a subordinate legislating body is generally an enabling provision to facilitate the subordinate legislating body to obtain relevant information from any source and it is not intended to vest any right in anybody. While exercising legislative functions, unless H unreasonableness or arbitrariness is pointed out, it is not open for the PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPN. v. PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ASSON. 209 Court to int
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.