Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 654
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Mangesh S. Patil, Prafulla S. Khubalkar, JJ.
Shri. Govind Bajirao Navpute - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department – 1 and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7515 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 12190 of 2023, Writ Petition No. 15392 of 2023, Writ Petition No. 15422 of 2023, Public Interest Litigation No. 4 of 2024
Decided On : 08-04-2025
Shri. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/by Shri. Saurabh Avhad and
Shri. S. R. Sapkal, advocate for the petitioner.
Shri. S. B. Deshpande, Senior Advocate (Special Counsel) a/w. Shri
Chetan Choudhari, Advocate i/by Shri. A. B. Girase, G.P. and Ms. S.
S. Joshi, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 6.
Shri. V. D. Salunke, advocate for respondent No. 4.
Shri. S. S. Tope, advocate for respondent No. 5.
The State Government can appoint an officer under Section 162 of the MRTP Act despite Section 21(4A) when the planning authority fails to perform its duties, as justified by supervening circumstances.
Headnote:
(A) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 21(4A), 154, and 162 - Public interest litigation regarding the appointment of an officer for preparing a combined development plan - The State Government's appointment of an officer under Section 162 was challenged as being in violation of Section 21(4A) - The court found that the planning authority had failed to perform its duties, and the State Government's actions were justified under the circumstances. (Paras 5, 7, 24, 40)
(B) Contempt of Court - The court addressed the contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of its prior orders, ultimately finding that the State Government's actions complied with the court's directions. (Paras 7, 9, 42)
Facts of the case:
The Municipal Corporation intended to prepare a draft development plan for the extended limits of Aurangabad. The planning authority had previously failed to perform its duties, leading to a High Court order that was upheld by the Supreme Court. The State Government appointed an officer under Section 162 to complete the development plan. (Paras 6, 23)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the State Government's appointment of an officer was valid and necessary due to the planning authority's failure to act, and the contempt petition was dismissed. (Paras 41, 42)
Issues: The main issue was whether the State Government could appoint an officer under Section 162 despite the provisions of Section 21(4A) mandating the appointment of a specific officer for the development plan. (Paras 5, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State Government's actions were justified in light of the planning authority's failure and the need for a combined development plan, emphasizing that statutory mandates must be adhered to but can be circumvented under specific circumstances. (Paras 40, 41)
Result: All Writ Petitions and the Public Interest Litigation are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
1. Heard. Rule in all the petitions. It is made returnable forthwith.
2. The learned Government Pleader and the learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service.
3. Common issues arise in all these petitions, including the public interest litigation and all the matters have been heard together. In order to avoid rigmarole, we are disposing of all these petitions and the PIL by this common judgment and order.
4. In order to avoid confusion, we are taking up writ petition No. 7515 of 2024 as a lead petition.
5. The issue which has cropped and needs to be answered in all these petitions can be culled down as under:-
Whether the State Government, resorting to Section 162 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, can replace an officer appointed under Section 21(4A) in light of judgment of the High Court in writ petition No. 1981 of 2016 with connected writ petitions, when under Section 21(4A), the authority to appoint such officer is with the Joint Director of Town Planning ?
6. The issue arises from the following set of events :-
(A) Respondent – the Municipal Corporation, Chhatrapati. Sambhajinagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Planning Authority’) under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for brevity, the ‘MRTP Act’) declared its intention to prepare a draft development plan of its extended limits under Section 23(1) on 26.05.2010. The draft was published on 03.02.2016..
(B) Mr. Govind Bajirao Navpute, the petitioner, filed writ petition No. 1981 of 2016. The High Court quashed and set aside the notification dated 04.02.2016 on the grounds that several changes were made in the report submitted by the officer and holding that the planning authority had failed to perform its duties for the purpose of preparation of development plan and in the circumstances holding that the situation had arisen under the provision of Section 21(4A).
(C) The planning authority challenged the decision of the High Court before the Supreme Court. A statement was made before the Supreme Court by the planning authority that in exercise of powers under Section 154, the State Government had issued directions for preparing a combined development plan for the original area by way of revision and for the extended area. In paragraph No. 13 in Civil Appeal No. 2237 of 2020, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
13. In this case, it is to be noted that proceedings were initiated in the year 2013 for revising the draft development plan and for one reason or the other, the proceedings remained at the stage of preparation of draft development plan. In view of the directions of the High Court, the said plan is yet to be prepared and is to be submitted to the Government for sanction. In any event having regard to communication/letter dated 15.01.2020 a fresh combined development plan for original and extended limits is to be prepared for Aurangabad city.
7. The Petitioner – Govind Bajirao Navpute preferred Contempt Petition No. 582 of 2022 alleging that there was willful disobedience by the planning authority of the mandate of the High Court in writ petition No. 1981 of 2016. Following order was passed while disposing of the contempt petition on 03.08.2023:
….
2. ….
3. ….
4. ….
5. ….
6. ….
7. In our view, the State Government directing the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation to prepare development plan for both the area, original and extended one, is in breach of the order passed in the Writ Petition.
8. During hearing of this Contempt Petition, a proposal came up to the effect that, if the State Government appoints an officer under Section 21(4A) and/or Section 162 of the MRTP Act within three weeks from today, the Development Plan, Special Unit appointed can submit its work carried out under Section 25 of the MRTP Act, 1966 to the said officer appointed. The said, officer can thereafter publish the draft development plan under Section 26, inviting suggestions and objections and carry out further process up to i
