Zoning regulations under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act are valid, and the state's discretion in zoning decisions is not subject to judicial review unless statutory violations occur.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

G.S.PATEL, J. - Rule.

2. Respondents waive service. A few days ago, we heard Dr Tulzapurkar for the Petitioner and Dr Saraf, learned Advocate General for the State Government extensively and listed the matter for orders.

3. Just south of the Ravindra Natya Mandir and Siddhivinayak Temple lies Appasaheb Marathe Marg. There is here, in the Mahim Division, a Town Planning Scheme formulated under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 ("MRTP Act"). This is TPS-IV. One of the plots on this, Final Plot No. 951(A), is owned by the Petitioner. On this there stands a building with the somewhat hopeful name of 'Rational House'.

4. The facts are not contentious. Dr Tulzapurkar has positioned his case as one entirely on questions of law. The Rational House property is 'zoned' in the industrial or 'I Zone'; specifically, the I-2 Zone. All around it, Dr Tulzapurkar says are properties that are in the residential or 'R Zone'. Rational House alone is an industrial zone island in an ocean of residential zone properties.

5. Dr Tulzapurkar submits that on the face of it this zoning, even if permissible in law, which he maintains it is not, is utterly arbitrary and irrational. It is true, as we shall presently see, that under the Development Control Regulations ("DCR") of 1991 and the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND PROMOTION REGULATIONS ("DCPR"), 2034 a plot in an industrial zone may be 'converted' into a 'residential zone' or may be allowed to be developed for residential purposes, but this requires the payment of a certain fee or premium or other charge by whatever name called, as also the surrender of part of the land to the public authority.

6. There is, therefore, an Article 14 classification challenge, Dr Tulzapurkar submits, because the Rational House property's classification or categorisation, which is another word for zoning, in the industrial zone is entirely arbitrary, irrational and without any demonstrable nexus to the purposes of the Act.

7. Carrying this further, Dr Tulzapurkar submits that neither under the MRTP Act nor under any other governing statute is there a concept of "zoning" properly so called. This is an artificiality created by the planning authority namely the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ("MCGM") and it has no basis in law. More importantly, in his submission, the zoning exercise is entirely without governing or controlling guidelines. Assuming, therefore, that zoning is permissible, the power to zone, i.e., the power to include or exclude a particular property from a particular zone cannot be an unfettered or uncanalised discretion. Unless it is shown that the zoning follows certain established and discernible guidelines, such a zoning has no sanctity in the eyes of the law.

8. If this is so, then there is no question of the Petitioner being asked to pay anything for putting its property to residential use, nor of ceding any portion of the property to the public authority. That would amount to an unconstitutional levy and expropriation, both.

9. Lastly, Dr Tulzapurkar submits that in a matter of planning law, public participation is essential. Indeed, public