Important Points1. Interpretation of a town planning statute which has an environmental aspect leading to application of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be held to be within the exclusive domain of the executive.2. Development Control Regulation 58 framed by the State of Maharashtra with a view to deal with the situation arising out of closure and/or unviability of various cotton textile mills occasioned inter alia by reason of a strike resorted to by the workers thereof is held valid in law.3. Delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioners indisputably has a role to play in the matter of grant of reliefs in a writ petition. Where by reason of delay and/or laches on the part of the writ petitioners the parties altered their positions and/or third parties interests have been created, public interest litigations may be summarily dismissed.

Headnote:(i) Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985—Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966—Sections 2, 14, 17, 22, 37, 38, 43, 45, 159—Development Control Regulation No. 58 (DCR 58)—Situation arising out of closure and/or unviability of various cotton textile mills occasioned by reason of a strike resorted to by the workers thereof—DCR 58 made by State of Maharashtra with a view to deal with the situation—Sale of lands by NTC—Writ petition filed questioning validity of DCR 58—DCR 58 of 1991 provided for development or redevelopment of lands of cotton textile mills—It provided for development of mill lands as a part of package of BIFR approved rehabilitation schemes and also for modernization and shifting thereof—In 2001, DCR 58 was amended/modified—State had appointed several committees to make an indepth study of the matter—Revival of closed mill was also a component part of the scheme behind framing of DCR 58—Raising of construction by mill owners had been questioned on ecological considerations—Apprehension that by reason of 2001 Regulations, existing green area would be reduced—Mills occupied lands measuring about 600 acres—NTC issued advertisements in several newspapers for sale of five mills—Out of five mills sold full payments have been received by National Textile Corporation from the purchasers of four mills—Whether purchasers of cotton textile mills of NTC can be made to suffer— (No)—Some of the appellants, bonafide purchasers have demolished structures and raised constructions—Impugned judgments of High Court allowing writ petitions, held not sustainable.
       Held : The upshot of our aforementioned discussions is:
       (i) The Public Interest Litigation was maintainable.
       (ii) DCR 58 is valid in law. DCR 58(1) applies also to closed mills but sub-regulation (6) of DCR - 58 does not apply to sick industries which have not been referred to BIFR.
       (iii) The clarification made by the State is neither ultra vires Section 37 of the MRTP Act nor is violative of the constitutional provisions.
       (iv) DCR 58, as inserted in 2001 and as clarified in 2003, is not contrary to the principles governing environmental aspects including the principles of sustainable and planned development vis-a-vis Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
       (v) Judicial review of DCR 58 was permissible in law.
       (vi) Sale of NTC mills was not contrary to the BIFR Scheme as also the orders passed by this Court.
       (vii) Although, delay and laches play an important role, as we have considered the merit of the matter, the writ petition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is not being dismissed on that ground alone.
       (viii) It is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether worker’s dues have been paid and also as to whether the committee had been applying the fund in terms of DCR 58 or not. However, all such contentions shall remain open. (Para 335)
       (ii) Constitution of India—Articles 32, 226—Public Interest Litigation— Scope of—Situation arising out of closure of various cotton mills—Public interest litigations filed challenging environmental aspects—Whether maintainable—(Yes).
       Held : While entertaining a public interest litigation of this nature several aspects of public interest being involved, the Court should find out as to how greater public interest should be subserved and for the said purpose a balance should be struck and harmony should be maintained between several interests and such as (a) consideration of ecology; (b) interest of workers (c) interest of public sector institution, other financial institutions, priority claimed due to workers; (d) advancement of public interest in general and not only a particular aspect of public interest; (e) interest and rights of owners; (f) the interest of a sick and closed industry; and (g) schemes framed by BIFR for revival of the company. (Para 55)
       The courts in doing so would have to take into consideration a large number of factors, some of which may be found to be competing with each other. It may not be proper to give undue importance to one at the cost of the other which may ultimately be found to be vital and give effect to the intent and purport for which the legislation was made. (Para 56)
       This Court times without number, however, has laid down the law as regard limited scope of public interest litigation. It sounded note of caution for entertaining public interest litigation in service matters. (Para 60)
       Public interest litigations, thus, have been entertained more frequently where a question of violation of the provisions of the statutes governing the environmental or ecology of the country has been brought to its notice in the matter of depletion of forest areas and/or when the executive while exercising its administrative functions or making subordinate legislations has interfered with the ecological balance with impunity. The High Court of Bombay, therefore, cannot be faulted with for entertaining the writ petition as a public interest litigation. (Para 61)
       (iii) INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES—GOLDEN RULE—Principle of purposive interpretation—Applicability of rule for interpretation of subordinate legislation.
       Held : The golden rule of interpretation is that unless literal meaning given to a document leads to anomaly or absurdity, the principles of literal interpretation should be adhered to. (Para 63)
       It is well-settled principle of law that in the absence of any context indicating a contrary intention, the same meaning would be attached to the word used in the latter as is given to them in the earlier statute. It is trite that the words or expression used in a statute before and after amendment should be given the same meaning. When the legislature uses the same words in a similar connection, it is to be presumed that in the absence of any context indicating a contrary intention, the same meaning should attach to the words. (Para 79)
       It is furthermore well-known that when the statute makes a distinction between the two phrases and one of the two is expressly deleted, it is contrary to the cardinal principle of statutory construction to hold that what is deleted is brought back into the statute and finds place in words which were already there in the first place. (Para 82)
       A statute, it is well known, is to be read as a whole. Subordinate legislation indisputably has to be read in the light of the provisions of the Act whereunder it has been made. It, however, must be read having regard to the purpose and object for which the statute is made. (Para 86)

Judgment

S.B. Sinha, J.—Leave granted in all SLPs.

Introduction

2. Whether any synthesis between environmental aspects and building regulation vis-a-vis the scheme floated by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short

‘BIFR’) in terms of the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, ‘SICA’) herein is possible is the core question involved in these appeals.

Background facts

3. The First Respondent herein is a public charitable trust. Its aims and objects, inter alia, are to look after the environment in all respects. It had allegedly initiated and/or participated in matters of environmental importance as regard preservation and improvement wherefor it had moved the court in public interest on several occasions. The Second Respondent herein is said to be the honorary Secretary of the First Respondent and served in various committees appointed by the Central and State Governments as also by the Bombay High Court.

4. The said respondents filed a writ petition questioning the validity of Development Control Regulation No. 58 (DCR 58) framed by the State of Maharashtra in terms of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 [for short "the MRTP Act"]. The Respondents in the writ application, some of whom are Appellants herein, were/are owners of various cotton textile mills.

5. DCR 58 admittedly was made by the State of Maharashtra with a view to deal with the situation arising out of closure and/or unviability of various cotton textile mills occasioned inter alia by reason of a strike resorted to by the workers thereof.

Writ Proceedings

6. The writ petition questioning the validity of DCR 58 by the First and Second Respondents was filed allegedly to protect the interests of the residents of Mumbai and to improve the quality of life in the town of Mumbai which is said to have drastically been deteriorated during the last fifteen years as also for preventing further serious damage to the town planning and ecology so as to avoid an irretrievable breakdown of the city. The main thrust of the writ petitioners was to ensure "open spaces" for the city and to provide the crying need of space for public housing.

7. In the said writ petition, apart from the State of Maharashtra, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), the National Textile Corporation (NTC) North Maharashtra and South Maharashtra were impleaded as respondents. Before the High Court, a large number of mill owners and others who allegedly have invested a huge sum on the lands of the mill owners or otherwise interested in implementation of DCR 58 of 2001 filed applications for their impleadment as parties therein which were opposed by the writ petitioner-respondents. The said applicants were however, allowed to intervene in the matter. It is, however, not in dispute that the purchasers from National Textile Corporation were not impleaded as parties therein who are now before us. On or about 2.6.2005, the writ petitions-Respondents took out a Chamber Summons seeking to amend the writ petition. The proposed amendments inter alia related to :

"i) a challenge to the clarification dated 28th March, 2003 issued by Respondent No. 3 on the ground that the same seeks to permit residential user and is therefore an amendment of DCR 58 of 2001; and

ii) the alleged requirement of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in pursuance of notification dated 27th January, 1994 as amended by notification dated 7th July, 2004 issued under the provisions of the Environment Protection Act."

8. The said Chamber Summons was allowed by an order dated 7.7.2005 directing :

"We are fully satisfied that the amendments sought are necessary and essential in the above Petition especially when the above petition is a PIL petition, which is yet to be admitted. The Respondents will have full opportunity to deal with these amendments by filing an additional affidavit in reply. Unde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 212

Cases Referred (83)