1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, waives notice for respondent Nos.1. Mr. More waives notice for respondent nos.2 and 3 and Mr. Ganbavale waives notice for respondent no.4. By consent, heard forthwith.

2. This petition takes exception to the resolution No.987 dated 20.8.2010 passed by the General Body of the respondent no.2 Corporation. On the basis of the said resolution, notice dated 6.10.2010 bearing No. 179, came to be issued by the respondent no.3, which was published in the local newspaper on 9.10.2010. The petitioner prays that the respondent nos.2 and 3 be directed to forthwith cancel and/or withdraw the said publication. The incidental relief claimed by the petitioner is to direct the respondent no.1 not to consider the proposal published and submitted by the respondent no.2 -Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation, for further minor modification under Section 37(1) of the MRTP Act, 1966 on the basis of or on the strength of the impugned advertisement being Notice No.179 issued by respondent No.3, published in the local newspaper on 9.10.2010.

3. The principal grievance of the petitioner, who incidentally happens to be the Corporator in the respondent Corporation, is that, the Agenda no.17 issued for the General Body Meeting convened on 20.8.2010 was only to consider the subject of alignment of 18 meters road passing through Survey No.344, 345, 346 and shifting of garden, cultural centre and library in the concerned DP Plan. However, the General Body, in the adjourned meeting passed resolution not limited to that topic, but transcended beyond that subject and including in respect of policy matters regarding further modification of the D.C. Rules (No.2.5) under Section 37(1) and for reduction of premium to be charged for development proposals for use of TDR under BRTS Corridor. This was completely without authority of law. If that part of the said resolution was to be quashed and set aside, it would necessarily follow that all steps taken or intended to be taken on the basis of such resolution are non-est in law.

4. In the context of this grievance, vide order dated 10.10.2012, we called upon the respondents to place on record documents referred to against subject no.17 of the Agenda of the General Body Meeting, to justify their stand that the contents of these documents implicitly permitted consideration of issue regarding further modification of D.C. Rules and reduction of premium to be charged for development proposals under BRTS Corridor. In addition, we directed the Corporation to state on affidavit as to how many cases have been processed by the Corporation by giving benefit of reduced premium and the names of such persons. As regards the later direction, the Corporation, in its affidavit has in unambiguous terms stated that, the benefit under the resolution dated 20.8.2012, has not been passed on to any person/entity so far, and the two proposals for utilization of TDR and permission for development in the areas affected by BRTS Corridor received in last two years have been considered on the basis of the sanctioned Development Rules vide notification of Government of Maharashtra, dated 3.3.2010 bearing No. TPS-1890/ 4/CR-1652 /09/UD-13. In view of this statement, the other aspect required to be explained by the Corporation does not need any further elaboration.

5. Reverting back to the issue raised by the petitioner about validity of the resolution passed in the General Body Meeting in relation to Agenda No.17 on 20.8.2010, as aforesaid, the Agenda was limited to consider alignment of 18 meter road and shifting of garden, cultural centre and library and not for further modification of the D.C. Rules and reduction of premium to be paid for development proposals under BRTS Corridor as such. The two issues are markedly different and by no stretch of imagination can be said to be overlapping. The latter is a policy matter, which, could not be taken up by way of a supplementary motion.