State of Maharashtra Mr. Kunal Cheema i/b Mr. Chandrashekhar Khambekar for & Ors. v. Promoters and Builders Association and another reported in (2004) 10 SCC 796 & Ors.

State of Maharashtra & Ors. ------- Mr. Kunal Cheema i/b Mr. Chandrashekhar Khambekar for the Petitioners. ...... Respondents. Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General along with Mr. V.S. Masurkar, G.P. for respondent No.1. Mr. K.K. Singhavi along with Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. S.B. Deshmukh for respondent No.3. ------ CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V.M.KANADE, J. DATE : 3RD JULY, 2008. P.C.:

We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the Notification dated 14/08/2007 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, exercising powers under section 37(2) of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 thereby modifying a town plan to the extent of closing D.P. Road, Pune. 2

The challenge is based upon the argument that the Government has exercised its powers arbitrarily and without proper application of mind. According to the Petitioners, who have come in public interest, residents of that area have been exposed to undue hardship by deletion of the road. Furthermore, this proposal was not even supported by the Pune Municipal Corporation.

The prayer is opposed by Mr. Ravi Kadam, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, Respondent No.3 - Bharti Vidyapeeth and even by the students who have filed an application for intervention.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - State submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and another Vs. Promoters and Builders Association and another reported in (2004) 10 SCC 796, the Government has absolute power to make deletion or take any other appropriate decision as in the wisdom of the Government is necessary and this satisfaction is not open to judicial review.

The principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) is, obviously, subject to the limitation that the action of the Government should not be arbitrary or perverse. In the present case, the Petitioners have filed Exhibit-A at page 16-A of the paper-book, showing blockage of the road as well 3 as the alternative road which is available to the persons living in that area. A D.P. road is being closed to traffic primarily on the ground that it is an area of University and Colleges. There are nearly 20 Colleges and more than ten thousand students are pursuing their academic career in that area. It is for the safety of the students as well as for the environment that this step has been taken by the Government. It is also pointed out that it is in the interest of environment and the greenery in the area, the pollution caused by the traffic and other vehicles is prevented. This decision has been taken by the concerned authorities in their wisdom and we are unable to see any perversity or arbitrariness in this action. We may also notice that no undue hardship is being caused to the residents inasmuch as, at a distance of 500 kilometers approximately, they have an alternative road available to them which is open to vehicular traffic. This position on site is demonstrably clear from Exhibit-A. The power of the Government under section 37(2) is wide power and even if the question of public interest is to be considered, the Court will have to weigh between the public interest and the larger public interest. If in the larger public interest, a decision has been taken by the authorities conscience of the fact that the road was being used for traffic earlier, it would hardly be open for the Court to substitute its own opinion even if it had to the contrary.

For these reasons, we see no merit in this Petition. The same is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE 4 V.M. KANADE, J.