The State Government must consider objections to a Town Planning Scheme per legal requirements, ensuring a reasoned order and opportunity for a personal hearing for affected parties.

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. Heard Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Manan Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the Appellant, Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent-corporation and Mr.Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General assisted by Ms.Ankeeta Rajput, for the respondent-state.

2. From a perusal of the record, it is pertinent to note that the original petitioner-Appellant herein had earlier approached this Court in Special Civil Application No.900 of 2005 challenging the determination made under the proposed Preliminary Town Planning Scheme with regard to four plots namely Revenue Survey Nos.370, 372, 374 and 388, belonging to the petitioner-trust. A bare reading of the judgment and order dated 04.05.2006 indicates that while hearing of the writ petition, learned advocate appearing for petitioner therein sought permission of the Court to withdraw the same with the request that the objections already submitted before the Town Planning Officer may be considered by the State Government before sanctioning the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme. This Court having noticed that the proposed Preliminary Scheme was pending consideration before the State Government, had disposed of the writ petition with the following observations and directions :-

“2. It goes without saying that under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, before sanctioning the Preliminary Scheme, the State Government is bound to consider the objections and suggestions forwarded by the Town Planning Officer along with the proposed Preliminary Scheme. However, still it will be open for the petitioner to submit an additional representation raising objections before the State Government and if such representation is made within a period of 10 days from today, the State Government is directed to consider the same in accordance with law and on merits without being influenced in any way by the present proceedings before sanctioning the Preliminary Scheme.

3. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. D.S.Permitted.”

3. It seems that after disposal of the said writ petition, the petitioner made a representation dated 08.05.2006 before the Secretary, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Gandhinagar, wherein various objections have been raised showing error in the proposed Town Planning Scheme prepared by the Town Planning Officer, submitted to the State Government for its sanction.

4. The writ petition, namely Special Civil Application No.23755 of 2006, out of which the present Appeal has arisen, was, thereafter, filed with the following reliefs :-

“(A) This Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the reservation for commercial purpose provided in Revenue Survey No. 388 in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No. 22 (Akota- Tandalja) sanctioned by Respondent No.1 being discriminatory, illegal, mala-fide and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and hence violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

(B) In the alternate this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider this petition as representation of the petitioner for variation in the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme No.22 (Akota-Tandalja) by lifting the reservation for the commercial purpose provided in Revenue Survey No.388 and make the said land available to the petitioner for the fulfillment of its objects.

(C) This Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No.1 to pr