Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
Goroba – Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department & Others – Respondents
Public Interest Litigation No. 88 of 2013 & Civil Application No. 1619 of 2014
Decided On : 03-08-2017
For the Petitioner:P.R. Patil, P.R. Tandale, Advocates.
For the Respondent:S.B. Yawalkar, A.G.P., V.D. Hon, Sr. Advocate i/b. A.V. Hon, V.J. Dixit, Sr. Advocate i/b. B.N. Patil, A.N. Irpatgire, Advocates.
An Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) is not a 'local authority' within the meaning of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) and is not exempt from obtaining permission under the MRTP Act for construction within its area of operation.
Headnote:
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a hotel and photo studio owner, filed a PIL as a resident of the area, alleging illegal construction by the respondent APMC (Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee) within the limits of the Latur Municipal Corporation without obtaining the necessary permissions. The APMC claimed exemption from obtaining permission under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) based on Section 12(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (APMC Act), which deems every Market Committee to be a local authority for all purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the definition of 'local authority' in the MRTP Act does not include an Agricultural Produce Market Committee set up under the APMC Act. The court further held that the legal fiction created by Section 12(2) of the APMC Act cannot be extended to include anything which is not in its purview or sweep, and that the APMC Act does not make an Agricultural Produce Market Committee a Planning Authority under the MRTP Act.
Issues: 1. Whether an Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) is a 'local authority' within the meaning of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). 2. Whether the APMC is exempt from obtaining permission under the MRTP Act for construction within its area of operation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'local authority' in the MRTP Act does not include an Agricultural Produce Market Committee set up under the APMC Act. 2. The legal fiction created by Section 12(2) of the APMC Act cannot be extended to include anything which is not in its purview or sweep. 3. The APMC Act does not make an Agricultural Produce Market Committee a Planning Authority under the MRTP Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the PIL and directed the Latur Municipal Corporation to take action against the illegal construction made by the APMC.
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. This Public Interest Litigation seeks the following reliefs:
“(A) By a writ of mandamus or orders or directions in the nature of mandamus, respondent No.5 Latur Municipal Corporation be directed to take action against the illegal construction made by the respondent No.7 M/s. S.B. Pallod Construction Co., Latur and respondent No.6 Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Latur in accordance with the provisions Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966.
(B) By a writ of mandamus or orders or directions in the nature of mandamus, Completion Certificate as well as Occupancy Certificate may not be issued to the respondent No.6 Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Latur and respondent No.7 M/s. S.B. Pallod Construction Co., Latur.”
3. In this Public Interest Litigation, two orders were passed. One is dated 19/04/2017 and the another is dated 14/06/2017. They read, as under:
Order dated 19/04/2017 -
“1. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that respondent APMC is not a local authority within meaning of section 2(15) of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act and, as such, the provisions of section 44 relating to grant of exemption for obtaining development permission does not apply.
2. Learned counsel for respondent-APMC has invited our attention to section 12(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963, which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, every Market Committee shall, for all purposes, be deemed to be a local authority. Even if it is assumed that respondent no. 6 is a local authority and no development permission is required, however, the development that is being carried out shall have to be in conformity with the building bylaws and regulations permitting development within the Corporation area. The construction plan shall have to be in conformity with the development regulations framed by the Corporation. There are certain deficiencies pointed out by the Municipal Corporation which shall have to be ratified. Learned counsel for respondent no.6 contends that the development is being carried out in conformity with the rules and regulations and, there is no violation at the instance of respondent no. 6.
3. In the circumstances, we direct the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Latur, to examine the development plans submitted by respondent no. 6 and shall record finding as to whether the plans and development are in conformity with the development regulations. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Latur, shall extend an opportunity of hearing to respondent no. 6 and thereafter proceed to record his finding. The Commissioner shall tender his affidavit to this Court on the adjourned date.
4. Stand over to 13th June, 2017.”
Order dated 14/06/2017 -
“1. The grievance in this Public Interest Litigation is that a construction of purely commercial nature is carried out and at the behest of Respondent No.6/APMC by Respondent No.7/Builder and Developer.
2. Interestingly, in the reply affidavit of Respondent No.7, after alleging that the litigation is initiated because of a business rivalry by another real estate developer, it is stated in paragraph 2 that Respondent No.6 APMC has executed the Development Agreement which is styled as "Built, Operate and Transfer Basis" with Respondent No.7 on 03.05.1999. The Deponent says that the construction of shops in pursuance of this agreement has been carried out and is on the verge of completion. The Petitioner has not raised any grievance from 1999 till 2013.
3. However, it is the Respondent No.7 who says that Respondent No.6 is a Committee which is constituted by the State Government by issuing a notification under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short "the APMC Act"). Respondent No.7 further says that though the lands o
