State Govt. Powers Under MRTP Act Prevail Over Specific Officer Appointments in Town Planning: Bombay High Court - 2025-04-10

Bombay High Court Upholds State Government's Power to Appoint Officer for Aurangabad Development Plan

Aurangabad, Maharashtra – The Bombay High Court, bench at Aurangabad, has dismissed a batch of writ petitions and a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the State Government's authority to appoint an officer to oversee the preparation of a combined development plan for Aurangabad, now known as Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The division bench of Justices Mangesh S. Patil and Prafulla S. Khubalkar delivered the judgment on April 8, 2025, settling a dispute over procedural aspects of town planning under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act).

Background of the Case

The case arose from the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation's (AMC) extended limits development plan. Earlier, the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1981 of 2016 had found the planning authority had failed in its duty to prepare the development plan for the extended limits, triggering provisions of Section 21(4A) of the MRTP Act. This section outlines a process for the Divisional Joint/Deputy Director of Town Planning to complete the plan if the planning authority defaults.

Subsequently, in contempt proceedings related to the non-implementation of the earlier order, the State Government proposed preparing a combined development plan for both the original and extended areas of Aurangabad. This led to the State Government appointing Respondent No. 6, Shri. Shrikant Deshmukh, as an officer under Section 162 of the MRTP Act to undertake this combined plan preparation, replacing Respondent No. 4, Mohd. Raza Khan, who was previously involved in the development plan process.

Petitioners' Arguments

The petitioners, including Shri. Govind Bajirao Navpute and Shri. Vinod S/o Gangabishan Agrawal, argued that the State Government's appointment of Respondent No. 6 was illegal and violated Section 21(4A) of the MRTP Act. They contended that once the High Court determined the planning authority's failure, Section 21(4A) exclusively empowered the "concerned" Divisional Joint/Deputy Director of Town Planning, or an officer nominated by them, to complete the remaining work. They asserted that the State Government could not circumvent this statutory mandate by invoking Section 162. Petitioners emphasized that Respondent No. 4 was already undertaking the work and had reached an advanced stage in preparing the draft development plan.

State Government's Defense

Represented by Senior Advocate Mr. S. B. Deshpande, the State Government defended its actions by emphasizing its broad powers under Section 162 of the MRTP Act. This section allows the State Government to step in if a planning authority is deemed incompetent or fails to perform its duties. The State argued that preparing a combined development plan for the original and extended areas was a strategic decision in the larger public interest, falling squarely within its powers under Section 162. They further contended that the earlier officer, Respondent No. 4, was not properly appointed under Section 21(4A) and that a fresh, comprehensive approach was necessary.

Court's Reasoning and Decision

The High Court sided with the State Government, dismissing all petitions and the PIL. The bench acknowledged the petitioners' arguments regarding Section 21(4A) but underscored the overarching authority of the State Government under Section 162. The court observed:

> "…when the legislature in its wisdom has provided a specific mechanism and conferred the powers on the authorities mentioned under Section 21(4A), on failure of the planning authority to prepare a draft development plan, in our considered view, the power of the State Government under Section 154 cannot extend and cannot be interpreted to mean that it can circumvent the statutory mandate under Section 41(4A)..."

However, the court then nuanced this initial observation, noting the "supervening events" and the State Government's decision to prepare a combined plan. It emphasized the State's power to issue directions "for the efficient administration of this Act or in the larger public interest" under Section 154 and its authority to act when a Planning Authority "neglects or fails to exercise or perform" its duties under Section 162.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the State Government's decision to direct a composite plan and appoint Respondent No. 6 under Section 162 was a valid exercise of its powers, especially given the context of preparing a combined plan. The court stated:

> "Exercise of that power by the State Government and directing a composite plan to be prepared for the revision of the original limits and for preparation of the draft for the extended limits, in our considered view, has changed the scenario and has mellowed down the consequence and effect of the direction of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1981/2016."

The Court also raised concerns about the petitioners' access to confidential draft plan documents prepared by Respondent No. 4, suggesting a lack of "clean hands" and undermining their appeal for equitable relief.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the State Government's broad supervisory and interventionist powers in town planning matters under the MRTP Act. While Section 21(4A) provides a specific mechanism for officer appointments in cases of planning authority default, the court clarified that this does not limit the State Government's overarching powers under Section 162 to ensure efficient and effective town planning in the larger public interest. The decision provides clarity on the hierarchy of authority in development plan preparation and emphasizes the State's role in guiding and, when necessary, directing town planning processes.