Bombay High Court
Ashok Shankarrao Babar & Another vs The State Of Mah & Others on 28 April, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp558.05 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 558 OF 2005
1. Ashok s/o Shankarrao Babar,
aged about 40 years, r/o
Shivaji Ward, Pusad,
Taluka - Pusad,
District - Yavatmal.
2. Pravin Manikrao Naik,
aged about 35 years, r/o
Shivaji Ward, Pusad, ig
Taluka - Pusad,
District - Yavatmal. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary,
Urban Development and Town
Planning Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
2. Director of Town Planning,
Central Office, Shivaji Nagar,
Pune.
3. Deputy Director of Town Planning
and Valuer, Amravati Division,
Amravati.
4. Assistant Director of Town Planning
and Valuer, Amravati District,
Amravati.
5. The Collector, Yavatmal,
District - Yavatmal.
6. The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Division, Pusad,
Taluka - Pusad,
::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:07:16 :::
wp558.05 2
District - Yavatmal.
7. The Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran,
Pusad, Taluka - Pusad,
District - Yavatmal.
8. Municipal Council, Pusad,
through its Chief Officer,
Taluka - Pusad,
District - Yavatmal. ... RESPONDENTS
Ms. M.S. Rane, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
APRIL 28, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
The petitioners who claim to be citizens residing at
Pusad and active in social life, question the proposed
modification in Development Plan by Respondent No. 8 -
Municipal Council.
2. The matter was called out yesterday on two
occasions and as nobody appeared, we adjourned the matter
for today. Today again, except Ms. Rane, learned AGP
appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6, nobody appeared for the
parties.
3. We have perused the records with the assistance of
the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
4. It appears that the site in question was/ is reserved
for construction of Elevated storage reservoir, playground,
Private School and Library. In exercise of powers under Section
37 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966,
Respondent No. 8 - Municipal Council, wanted said reservation
to be altered to Shopping Centre.
5. This Court has on 17.02.2005 directed maintenance
of status quo. That interim order was confirmed while issuing
Rule in the matter on 25.04.2005. On 14.06.2005, Respondent
No. 8 - Municipal Council was permitted to carry on repairs to
overhead water tank on the property.
6. Ms. Rane, learned AGP has invited our attention to
reply affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 3 on
02.02.2006. She submits that as per scheme of Section 37,
statutorily minor modification can be sought by Planning
Authority and it can be cleared by the State Government, after
following the procedure stipulated therein. By placing reliance
upon the said affidavit, she states that all preliminaries have
been completed but because of orders of this Court, affected
parties including present petitioners were not heard. After
hearing the concerned parties, suitable decision can be taken by
the State Government. If the State Government finds substance
in the request made by the Municipal Council, minor
modification, altered user of property may be allowed or then it
may be rejected. She, therefore, submits that writ petition
which seeks to prohibit the State Government from performing
its statutory duty should not be entertained.
7. In the light of various interim orders passed by us
and expiry of period of about 11 years, after filing of writ
petition, we find it convenient to permit the State Government
to proceed to hear the petitioners as also affected parties on the
request made by Respondent No. 8 - Municipal Council. In
changed circumstances, Respondent No. 8 also may not press
for the change. All these aspects can be looked into by
Respondent No. 1 as per Section 37 and thereafter it can issue
necessary orders. If the orders are against the petitioners, the
petitioner can thereafter challenge it in accordance with law.
8. Hence, we direct the petitioners as also Respondent
No. 8 to appear before Respondent No. 1 for such consideration
on 15.06.2016 and to abide by further instructions of
Respondent No. 1 in the matter. Respondent No. 1 shall take
necessary decision in accordance with Section 37 of
Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, within next
three months. Interim orders passed by this Court shall
continue till completion of this exercise by Respondent No. 1
and shall be subject to it.
9. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule discharged.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
******
*GS.
