Bombay High Court
Star Habitat Private Limited vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 October, 2023
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
904-OSWP-2514-2023.DOC
Ashwini
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2514 OF 2023
Star Habitat Private Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr ...Respondents
Dr Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate, with Bhushan Deshmukh,
Abhinesh Pradhan, Garima Agrawal & Yash Dedhia, i/b Wadia
Ghandy & Co, for the Petitioner.
Mr Abhay L Patki, Addl. GP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr Kunal Waghmare, for the Respondent-MCGM.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Kamal Khata, JJ.
DATED: 19th October 2023
PC:-
Digitally signed
by ASHWINI
1. The Petition can be disposed of with a simple direction. Dr ASHWINI GAJAKOSH H Date:
GAJAKOSH 2023.10.20 10:43:30 Sathe, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, clarifies that +0530 prayer clause (b) is not pressed. Prayer clause (a) has been amended with our leave just yesterday. The amended prayer now read as follows:
"(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or directions, directing Respondent No. 1 to take a decision on the said EP i.e. EP-RS 103 in accordance with Section 31 (1) of MRTP Act (as kept in Page 1 of 4 19th October 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2023 02:20:34 ::: 904-OSWP-2514-2023.DOC abeyance in terms of paragraph 28 (B) of the 8th May 2018 Sanction Notification) within a period of 2 (two) weeks from the date of the order."
2. The short point in the Petition is that a particular development plan proposed modification or Proposal No EP-RS-103 has been kept in abeyance, i.e., neither sanctioned nor rejected, since 8th May 2018 when other proposals to the development plan of Greater Mumbai were finally sanctioned.
3. The only submission that Dr Sathe makes is that Section 31(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ("MRTP") has some timelines in it and these may be taken as broadly indicative of what may be considered as reasonable time within which such proposals must be finally dealt with and decided one way or the other.
4. Mr Patki for the State Government has no instructions to make a statement as to when the decision will be taken, let alone what decision is even in contemplation.
5. We agree with Dr Sathe that a proposal cannot be left hanging or kept in abeyance indefinitely. If that happens, the provisions of Section 46 of the MRTP Act will automatically begin to apply, that is to say, the provisions of a draft proposal will have to be taken into account by the planning authority when considering any application for development. This leads to a situation of uncertainty in the town planning law and its administration. It is Dr Sathe's submission, Page 2 of 4 19th October 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2023 02:20:34 ::: 904-OSWP-2514-2023.DOC therefore, that such a situation of perennial or indefinite uncertainty or flux is not contemplated by the statute.
6. We do not think it is necessary to go deeper into the matter. By a previous order dated 25th September 2023, we had asked the State Government to file an Affidavit setting on record the status regarding Schedule B to the 2018 Notification and whether this was being pursued or has been abandoned. The Petitioner also told us on the last occasion that it was undertaking a project under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna Scheme and this project, intended to provide housing to economically weaker sections and lower income groups, has been necessarily held back only for want of a decision on the DP proposal.
7. It would be unrealistic to expect the State Government to take an overnight decision in this regard. We will have to give the State Government sufficient time, even though Dr Sathe submits that it has already had more than sufficient time. Such decisions typically tend to have a much wider impact beyond the individual proposal or the individual plot in question. Indeed, recently it has been argued before us that if a proposal of this kind was sanctioned for one plot, then it ought to have been similarly allowed for the immediately adjacent plot.1 These are undoubtedly considerations that the State Government, as the final sanctioning authority, will have to bear in mind. Zoning provisions and change of land use have a significant impact on locality and area development and across the entire development plan.
1 Rational Art & Press Pvt Ltd v State of Maharashtra & Ors, Writ Petition No 3008 of 2021, judgment dated 6th/9th October 2023.
Page 3 of 419th October 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2023 02:20:34 ::: 904-OSWP-2514-2023.DOC
8. It is for this reason that we allow the State Government time until 30th April 2023 to take a decision on the matter.
9. The matter will be listed on 2nd May 2024 for orders.
(Kamal Khata, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 4 of 4 19th October 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 20/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2023 02:20:34 :::