The consultation requirements under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and the scope of judicial review of legislative decisions made by delegatees under the Act.

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. All these four petitions challenge the notification issued by the State of Maharashtra/respondent no.1 herein dated 12th November, 2014 under the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) thereby sanctioning modifications with certain conditions in the Development Plan for the City of Nagpur and for that purpose, amending notification dated 4th November, 2008.

2. The facts and the grounds raised in all these petitions are almost identical with one additional factual challenge insofar as Writ Petition No. 5056 of 2016 is concerned. As such, all these four petitions are heard together and decided by this common Judgment and Order.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petitions are as under :

In the year 2000-2001, the Planning Authority for the City of Nagpur had proposed to increase width of one road known as “Kelibag Road” from 15 meters to 24 meters. In the Development Plan, which was notified by the State Government on 7th January, 2000, the width of road was retained at 15 meters. However, in the Development Plan, the words “24 meters” were not scored out. Some of the present petitioners and others, therefore, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition Nos. 6255 of 2005, 5931 of 2005 and 6467 of 2005. The said petitions were decided by this Court vide Common Judgment and Order dt.17.1.2007. In the said petitions, a statement made on behalf of respondent no.1 that, in the Development Plan, the width of road was shown as 24 meters' came to be recorded in the said Judgment. As such, the petitioners and other aggrieved persons filed Misc. Civil Application Nos. 203 of 2007, 451 of 2007 and 1344 of 2007. This Court vide order dated 16th November, 2005 allowed the Misc. Civil Applications and reviewed the order dated 17th January, 2007 recording therein that, as per the Development Plan, the width of said road was 15 meters and not 24 meters.

4. It appears that the General Body of respondent no.2/Nagpur Municipal Corporation in its meeting dt.29.3.2008 vide resolution dt.179 resolved that the width of said road should be increased to 24 meters from 15 meters and for that, further resolved to take action for minor modification of Development Plan as provided under Section 37 of the said Act. Accordingly, a notice was published by respondent no.2 in the local Newspapers on 2nd November, 2008 inviting objections to the proposed minor modification of the Development Plan. The petitioners and other citizens raised their objection to the proposal for effecting minor modification of Development Plan. After hearing the objections, a report was submitted by the Municipal Commissioner on 17.2.2010 to the State Government. It appears that there were certain internal communications between the different organs of the State Government. After considering the material placed on record, the impugned notification came to be issued on 12th November, 2014. It appears that, thereafter the petitioners made certain representations to the Authorities. However, since the petitioners could not get redressal of their grievance before the respondents/Authorities, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present petitions.

5. This Court vide Order dt.1.3.2016 observing that it was prima facie of the view, that the Subordinate Officers of the State Government have overlooked the endorsement made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister and put up a contrary note to the one put up by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, while issuing notice, directed the parties to maintain status-quo. After pleadings were complete, learned Counsel for the parties requested this Court for deciding the petitions finally at this stage. Accordingly, we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties extensively on 30th September, 2016 and 1st Octo