JUDGMENT :

N.V. Anjaria, J.

The petitioner, by profession an advocate, claiming to be a public spirited person, has invoked the public interest jurisdiction of this court by filing present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The grievance raised is that respondent No. 2-Kalol Municipality granted development permission to respondent No. 5 without giving effect to the requirement of 20% deduction from the total land area for public amenities as required under the General Development Control Regulations. The petitioner seeks to assert that the petition is filed in larger interest of the residents of the town of Kalol, who, says the petitioner, are deprived of the said benefit of 20% land for public purpose.

2. On the above premises and in the said context, the prayer is made for issuance of appropriate writ or direction to set aside the decision of Kalol Nagarpalika in not deducting 20% land, that is, admeasuring around 17,022.60 Sq. Meters out of total 85113 Sq. Meters land from Final Plot No. 243 paiki, Town Planning Scheme No. 1 at Kalol from the developer under the GDCR and further to declare that the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner has further prayed to direct respondent Nagarpalika to take possession of 20% land out of the total area of land in the final plot in question.

3. The facts are that respondent No. 5 herein purchased the land admeasuring 85,113 Sq. Meters, bearing Final Plot No. 243, Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Kalol, on which previously, Navjivan Mill, Kalol was situated. The said textile mills went into liquidation, its properties was auctioned and the auction sale in favour of respondent No.5 came to be confirmed by order of this court in Official Liquidator Report No. 18 of 2003. The official liquidator by letter dated 19th August, 2004 intimated that he had no objection if respondent No. 5 – M/s. Deep Estate and Developers Private Limited develops the land. It appears that respondent No. 5 submitted development/construction plan to Kalol Municipality, which was the competent authority for Kalol Town Planning Scheme No. 1. Respondent No. 2 granted the development permission on 12th July, 2004 under the GDCRs.

3.1 The General Development Control Regulations (GDCRs) of the revised draft development plan of AUDA, inter alia provided in its clause 10.10.1 for contribution of land for public purpose. Clause 10.10.1 deals with closed textile mills to provide that "In case of development/redevelopment of land of closed mills for any permissible purpose other than use of textile mills, the competent authority shall enforce owners/applicant to contribute land to the competent authority at the rate of 20% in aggregate of its plot/building unit (Final Plot) by reconstitution of such plot/building unit, so as to provide land for public amenities/public purpose in that area. The land so obtained shall not be used other than public purpose and public amenities.” Clause 2.5 defines 'amenities' and it "Means road, streets, open spaces, parks, recreational grounds, play grounds, gardens, water supply, electric supply, street lighting, drainage, sewerage, public works and other utilities, communication networks, surface and convenience”.

3.2 As per the above Clause in GDCRs, the provision in respect of the development or redevelopment of closed mills is that while so utilising the land of the closed mill, 20% in aggregate of the total area would have to be provided for public purpose in that area. The competent authority to enforce the provision of GDCR is respondent No. 2 Municipality, which gave development permission on 12th July, 2004 to respondent No. 5.

3.3 The case of the petitioner is that while granting the said development permission, requirement of 20% deduction contemplated in Clause 10.10.1 was not properly observed and complied with; instead of deducting 20% of the area and earmarking the same for public purpose, respondent No. 2 counted the area of internal roads construc