Writ Petition No. 7515 of 2024 · Bombay High Court
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:10439-DB WP No. 7515 of 2024 & OrsIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 7515 OF 2024Shri. Govind Bajirao NavputeAge : 70 years, Occu: Agriculture.R/o: Gut No. 389, Chikalthana, Aurangabad,Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.… PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department – 1, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2.The Director Town Planning, Maharashtra State,Central Building,Pune.3.The Joint Director Town Planning,Aurangabad.4.The Deputy Director Town Planning, Development Plan, Aurangabad,Through its Officer,Mohd. Raza Khan Mohd. Abdul Sattar Khan,Age : Major, Occup.: Deputy Director of Town Planning Department (Special Unit)R/o.: PWD quarter No. 43, Opp. Gurudwara, Osmanpura, Aurangabad – 431 005,Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.5.Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,Aurangabad,Through its Municipal Commissioner6.The Deputy Director Town Planning,Draft Development Plan,Aurangabad,Through its Appointment Officer,Shrikant S/o Marutirao Deshmukh,Age : 56 years, Occu: Deputy Director of Town Planning,R/o: Aurangabad Corporation...RESPONDENTS1/35
Legal Reasoning
WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Ors…•Shri. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/by Shri. Saurabh Avhad andShri. S. R. Sapkal, advocate for the petitioner.•Shri. S. B. Deshpande, Senior Advocate (Special Counsel) a/w. ShriChetan Choudhari, Advocate i/by Shri. A. B. Girase, G.P. and Ms. S.S. Joshi, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 6.•Shri. V. D. Salunke, advocate for respondent No. 4.•Shri. S. S. Tope, advocate for respondent No. 5.…WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 12190 OF 2023Shri. Vinod S/o Gangabishan Agrawal,Age : 57 years, Occu: Contractor,R/o: C-1, Pride Park, Vedant Nagar,Aurangabad,Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.… PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department – 1, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2.The Director Town Planning, Maharashtra State,Central Building,Pune.3.The Joint Director Town Planning,Aurangabad.4.The Deputy Director Town Planning, Development Plan Special Unit,Aurangabad,Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad.5.Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,Aurangabad,Through its Municipal Commissioner.6.Shrikant S/o Marutirao Deshmukh,Age : 55 years, Occu: Deputy Director of Town Planning,R/o: Aurangabad Corporation..RESPONDENTS2/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Ors…•Shri. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/by Shri. Saurabh Avhad andShri. S. R. Sapkal, advocate for the petitioner.•Shri. S. B. Deshpande, Senior Advocate (Special Counsel) a/w. ShriChetan Choudhari, Advocate i/by Shri. A. B. Girase, G.P. and Ms. S.S. Joshi, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.•Shri. V. D. Salunke, advocate for respondent No. 4.•Shri. S. S. Tope, advocate for respondent No. 5.…WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 15392 OF 2023Syed Sarwat Begum W/o Arif Hussaini,Age: 51 years, Occu : Household,R/o: H. No. 8-5-107, Shah Bazar,Aurangabad,Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.… PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department – 1, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2.The Director Town Planning, Maharashtra State,Central Building,Pune.3.The Joint Director Town Planning,Aurangabad.4.The Deputy Director Town Planning, Development Plan, Aurangabad,Through its Officer,Mohd. Raza Khan Mohd. Abdul Sattar Khan,Age : Major, Occup.: Deputy Director of Town Planning Department (Special Unit)R/o.: PWD quarter No. 43, Opp. Gurudwara, Osmanpura, Aurangabad – 431 005,Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.5.Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,Aurangabad,Through its Municipal Commissioner.3/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Ors6.The Deputy Director Town Planning, Development Plan Special Unit,Aurangabad,Through its Officer,Shrikant S/o Marutirao Deshmukh,Age : 55 years, Occu: Deputy Director of Town Planning,R/o: Aurangabad Corporation..RESPONDENTS…•Shri. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/by Shri. Saurabh Avhad andShri. S. R. Sapkal, advocate for the petitioner.•Shri. S. B. Deshpande, Senior Advocate (Special Counsel) a/w. ShriChetan Choudhari, Advocate i/by Shri. A. B. Girase, G.P. and Ms. S.S. Joshi, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 6.•Shri. Akash E. Madne, advocate for respondent No. 4.•Shri. S. S. Tope, advocate for respondent No. 5.…WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 15422 OF 2023Smt. Hazirabee W/o Ahmed Khan,Age : 69 years, Occu: Household & Agri.R/o: Satara Parisar, Aurangabad,Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.… PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department – 1, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2.The Director Town Planning, Maharashtra State,Central Building,Pune.3.The Joint Director Town Planning,Aurangabad.4.The Deputy Director Town Planning, Development Plan, Aurangabad,Through its Officer,4/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & OrsMohd. Raza Khan Mohd. Abdul Sattar Khan,Age : Major, Occup.: Deputy Director of Town Planning Department (Special Unit)R/o.: PWD quarter No. 43, Opp. Gurudwara, Osmanpura, Aurangabad – 431 005,Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.5.Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,Aurangabad,Through its Municipal Commissioner.6.The Deputy Director Town Planning, Development Plan Special Unit,Aurangabad,Through its Officer,Shrikant S/o Marutirao Deshmukh,Age : 55 years, Occu: Deputy Director of Town Planning,R/o: Aurangabad Corporation..RESPONDENTS…•Shri. R. D. Dhorde, Senior Advocate a/w. Shri P. S. Dighe, advocatei/by Shri. Shashikant T. Cahlikwar, advocate for the petitioner.•Shri. S. B. Deshpande, Senior Advocate (Special Counsel) a/w. ShriChetan Choudhari, Advocate i/by Shri. A. B. Girase, G.P. and Ms. S.S. Joshi, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 6.•Shri. S. S. Tope, advocate for respondent No. 5.…WITHPUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 4 OF 2024Sarda Narayan PurushottamAge : 46 years, Occu : Business,Presently Residing at Flat No. 04,Astik Apartment, Nageshwarwadi,Near Khanale Hospital, Aurangabad – 431001.… PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra, Through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400032.5/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Ors2.The Principal Secretary – 1,Urban Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai 400098.3.Urban Development Department,through Joint Secretary,Mantralaya, Mumbai4.Town Planning and Valuation Department,through Director,Central Office, Old Building,Pune – 411001.5.Town Planning and Valuation Departmentthrough Joint Director,Aurangabad Division,Mondha Naka, Aurangabad.6.Shri. Shrikant Deshmukh,Deputy Director, Town Planning, and Appointed Officer, Draft Development Plan,Chh. Sambhajinagar Municipal Corporation,Off. : Aurangabad Smart City Office,V.I.P Road, Near Aamkhas Maidan,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.7.Shri. Mohd Raza Khan,Deputy Director, Town Planning,Development Plan, Special Unit,Off. : Municipal Corporation, Town Hall,Aurangabad – 431001.8.Aurangabad Municipal Corporationthrough Administrator,Off. : A.M.C., Town Hall, Aurangabad – 431001...RESPONDENTS…•Shri. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate i/by Shri. Mohd. Aseem Mohd. AbdulKaleem, advocate for the petitioner.•Shri. S. B. Deshpande, Senior Advocate (Special Counsel) a/w. ShriChetan Choudhari, Advocate i/by Shri. A. B. Girase, G.P. and Ms. S.S. Joshi, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.•Shri V. D. Salunke, advocate for respondent No. 7.•Shri. Anand Bhandari, advocate for respondent No. 8.…6/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & OrsCORAM:MANGESH S. PATIL & PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.RESERVED ON:08.01.2025PRONOUNCED ON :08.04.2025JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :.Heard. Rule in all the petitions. It is made returnableforthwith.2.The learned Government Pleader and the learned advocatesfor the respective respondents waive service.3.Common issues arise in all these petitions, including thepublic interest litigation and all the matters have been heard together. Inorder to avoid rigmarole, we are disposing of all these petitions and thePIL by this common judgment and order.4.In order to avoid confusion, we are taking up writ petitionNo. 7515 of 2024 as a lead petition.5.The issue which has cropped and needs to be answered in allthese petitions can be culled down as under:-Whether the State Government, resorting to Section 162 ofthe Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, canreplace an officer appointed under Section 21(4A) in light ofjudgment of the High Court in writ petition No. 1981 of 2016with connected writ petitions, when under Section 21(4A),the authority to appoint such officer is with the Joint Directorof Town Planning ?7/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Ors6.The issue arises from the following set of events :-(A)Respondent – the Municipal Corporation, Chhatrapati.Sambhajinagar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PlanningAuthority’) under the Maharashtra Regional Town PlanningAct, 1966 (for brevity, the ‘MRTP Act’) declared its intentionto prepare a draft development plan of its extended limitsunder Section 23(1) on 26.05.2010. The draft was publishedon 03.02.2016..(B)Mr. Govind Bajirao Navpute, the petitioner, filed writ petitionNo. 1981 of 2016. The High Court quashed and set aside thenotification dated 04.02.2016 on the grounds that severalchanges were made in the report submitted by the officer andholding that the planning authority had failed to perform itsduties for the purpose of preparation of development planand in the circumstances holding that the situation had arisenunder the provision of Section 21(4A).(C)The planning authority challenged the decision of the HighCourt before the Supreme Court. A statement was madebefore the Supreme Court by the planning authority that inexercise of powers under Section 154, the State Governmenthad issued directions for preparing a combined development8/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Orsplan for the original area by way of revision and for theextended area. In paragraph No. 13 in Civil Appeal No. 2237of 2020, the Supreme Court observed as under:-13. In this case, it is to be noted that proceedings wereinitiated in the year 2013 for revising the draftdevelopment plan and for one reason or the other, theproceedings remained at the stage of preparation ofdraft development plan. In view of the directions of theHigh Court, the said plan is yet to be prepared and is tobe submitted to the Government for sanction. In anyevent having regard to communication/letter dated15.01.2020 a fresh combined development plan fororiginal and extended limits is to be prepared forAurangabad city.7.The Petitioner – Govind Bajirao Navpute preferred ContemptPetition No. 582 of 2022 alleging that there was willful disobedience bythe planning authority of the mandate of the High Court in writ petitionNo. 1981 of 2016. Following order was passed while disposing of thecontempt petition on 03.08.2023:….2.….3.….4.….5.….6.….7. In our view, the State Government directing theAurangabad Municipal Corporation to prepare development planfor both the area, original and extended one, is in breach of theorder passed in the Writ Petition.8. During hearing of this Contempt Petition, a proposal cameup to the effect that, if the State Government appoints an officerunder Section 21(4A) and/or Section 162 of the MRTP Actwithin three weeks from today, the Development Plan, Special9/35
Decision
WP No. 7515 of 2024 & OrsUnit appointed can submit its work carried out under Section 25of the MRTP Act, 1966 to the said officer appointed. The said,officer can thereafter publish the draft development plan underSection 26, inviting suggestions and objections and carry outfurther process up to its submission to the State Governmentunder Section 30 of the MRTP Act. This will also save the workalready done by the Special unit and implement the directionsissued by this Court. The learned Senior Counsel, on instructions,submitted the State Government to have been in agreement withthe said proposal. The Planning Unit shall submit its work doneto the Officer appointed by the State Government, within threemonths.9. In view of the above, we take it that the State Governmenthas made a statement accepting the said proposal and undertakesto comply with the same. The contempt stands purged and thepetition stands disposed of.8.In the Special Leave Petition, the original petitioner – GovindBajirao Navpute also prayed for a consequential relief in the form ofobjection to the order passed under Section 21(4A) dated 31.08.2023appointing a special authority and further objecting to the order dated07.11.2023 passed by the State Government in purported exercise of thepowers under Section 162(1) appointing an officer for undertaking anexercise of preparation of combined draft development plan for theoriginal area and extended area.9.It is to be noted that pursuant to the order passed by the HighCourt in the contempt proceedings dated 03.08.2023, by invoking theprovisions of Section 21(4A), the State Government appointed respondentNo. 6 as an officer to perform duties under Sections 26 to Section 30. Theallegations are that though there was no reference to the powers of the10/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & OrsState Government under Section 162(1) in the order dated 03.08.2023passed in the contempt proceedings and it was not even referred to in theorder dated 31.08.2023 appointing respondent No. 6, and perhapsrealizing the mistake/illegality the impugned order dated 07.11.2023 wasissued by the State Government invoking that provision therebyconfirming appointment of respondent No. 6 who was then the DeputyDirector of Town Planning, Greater Mumbai, as an officer to complete theproceedings for composing the draft development plan by revising plan ofthe original limit plus preparing draft development plan of extended limitsand it was ordered that the draft development special unit of theChh. Sambhajinagar shall handover the entire proceedings, documents,maps, material of the computerized proceedings to respondent No. 6.10.In the meanwhile, the development plan special unitsubmitted a report on 28.08.2023 indicating that a survey was carried outand submitted its report to the planning authority regarding existing landuse (ELU) and informing that draft of proposed land use (PLU) was alsocompleted.11.Pursuant to the impugned orders dated 31.08.2023 and07.11.2023, respondent No. 6 published the draft development plan on07.03.2024 instead of issuing direction to respondent No. 4, who wasreplaced by respondent No. 6, to complete the process or publication ofthe draft development plan under Section 26(1).11/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Ors12.Hence, these petitions wherein some of the petitioners havechallenged appointment of respondent No. 6 on the ground that it is inviolation of Section 21(4A) and restraining him from executing andimplementing the draft development plan published on 07.03.2024.13.The learned senior advocate Mr. Sapkal, the learned senioradvocate Mr. Dhorde, and learned advocate Mr. Kale who appears for thepetitioners in the PIL would take us through the provisions of MRTP Actparticularly the scheme regarding preparation of the development planunder Chapter III and would submit that once this Court in writ petitionNo. 1981 of 2016 had expressly concluded that the planning authority hadfailed to prepare a development plan for the extended limits of Chh.Sambhajinagar Municipal Corporation / planning authority, and when ithad expressly concluded that the situation had arisen for operation ofSection 21(4A), the only course available was to undertake the remainingwork, by the concerned divisional deputy director of town planning or anofficer nominated by him not below the rank of an Assistant Director ofTown Planning. Neither the planning authority nor the State Governmenthad power and jurisdiction to appoint respondent No.6. They wouldemphasize that when the provision expressly authorizes theaforementioned officers to exercise the powers, it ought to have beenexercised by those authorities only and the planning authority and theState Government could not have exercised it. They would submit that12/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Orsgiving a complete go by to such statutory mandate, the State Governmentin purported exercise of powers under Section 154 and 162 could not haveovercome the provisions of Section 21(4A) circuitously. They wouldsubmit that even the division bench while passing the order in thecontempt petition had concluded in paragraph No. 7 that the direction ofthe State Government to the planning authority to prepare reviseddevelopment plan for the original area and development plan for theextended one was in breach of order passed in writ petition No. 1981 of2016. Learned senior advocates would take pains to emphasize adjective‘concerned’ contained in Section 21(4A).14.The learned senior advocates submit that respondent No.4was appointed and was undertaking the work for preparation of a draftdevelopment plan, who had informed the state government that thespecial unit headed by him had completed the work up to the stage ofSection 25 regarding proposed land use plan which was ready forpublication under Section 26, by his communication dated 28.08.2023.However, ignoring such communication, the State Government mala fidepassed the impugned order dated 31.08.2023 directing him to handoverthe entire work prepared till then to respondent No. 6. Respondent No. 4was working as a Deputy Director of Town Planning since 02.08.2021 andwas the senior most officer but was sought to be replaced by respondentNo. 6 who was junior to him. Respondent No. 6 being not the ‘concerned’13/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Orsofficer under Section 21(4A), his appointment is illegal. Learned senioradvocates would submit that since the entire work up to the stage ofSection 25 was completed by respondent No.4, only task left withrespondent No. 6 was to publish the draft development plan under Section26(1). They would submit that when writ petition No. 12190 of 2023 wasfiled challenging appointment of respondent No. 6, the Court had passedorder on 30.10.2023. Pursuant to direction of this Court, respondent No. 4had handed over the files to respondent No. 6. Accordingly by a specificcommunication dated 30.10.2023, a copy of which is annexed to thepetition (Exhibit – ‘M’) the entire record was handed over to the DeputyDirector of Town Planning that is respondent No. 6, duly sealed.15.In order to ensure that no tampering happens, respondentNo. 4 expressly asserted in the communication to open the seals in hispresence alone and further expressly stating that the draft was ready forbeing published. They would submit that since the draft development planfor the extended area was already prepared by respondent No. 4, therewas no propriety or occasion for the state government to set the clockback while appointing respondent No. 6 under the pretext of preparing acombined draft development plan for the extended area and the reviseddevelopment plan for the original area. They would submit that the onlytask that remains to be completed in respect of preparation of draftdevelopment plan for the extended area was regarding publication under14/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & OrsSection 26(1). Respondent No. 6 at the most could take further steps forcompleting formalities up to the stage of Section 30. They submit thatthere is every room to believe that under the pretext of preparing draftdevelopment plan, the draft prepared by respondent No. 4 is to be alteredthere is every possibility that the respondent No. 6 appointed by the StateGovernment would not publish the draft prepared by respondent No. 4.They submit that respondent No. 6 has prepared a new draft developmentplan by engaging agency completely overlooking and by-passing thecompleted draft (proposed land use) prepared by respondent No. 4. Theywould submit that respondent No. 6 published the draft development planon 07.03.2024 and the Municipal Commissioner in collusion has alsodisbursed amount of 6,00,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crore) to the agency₹which had helped in preparation of the draft development plan.Respondent No.6 called for the objections. All such objections werereceived and the hearing was concluded on 14.06.2024.16.Learned senior advocate Mr. Sapkal would submit thatpetitioner’s land was reserved in the draft development plan prepared byrespondent No. 6 and he had raised an objection thereto. He would submitthat there were 700 to 715 reservations in the original limits and theextended limits in the draft prepared earlier which have been reduced inthe draft prepared by respondent No. 6 to 171. There are several suchobjections to the draft prepared by respondent No. 6. There are several15/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Orserrors as indicated in the petitions and draft prepared by respondent No. 6being without jurisdiction, authority and illegal, is liable to be quashed.17.Learned senior advocate Mr. Deshpande who has beenappointed as special counsel for the state submitted that in light of powersconferred with the State Government under Section 162, no fault can befound with the orders dated 31.08.2023 and 07.11.2023 in directingpreparation of a combined draft development plan for the extended areaand revised draft for the original area which was already due for revisionsince more than 20 years from finalization of the original developmentplan had elapsed. He would submit that in fact this was expresslycommitted by the State Government before the High Court when it washearing the contempt petition No. 582 of 2022 as reflected in the orderdated 03.08.2023. He would submit that the petitioner from writ petitionNo. 1981 of 2016 had put up a challenge to that order of the High Courtin the contempt proceedings but the Supreme Court has not interferedwith it. He would submit that independently, even pursuant to thedirections of this Court in writ petition No. 12190 of 2023, respondent No.4 was directed to handover the entire record to respondent No. 6 dated30.10.2023. Consequently, in the conspectus of the changed scenariowhen the State Government proposed to undertake steps for preparationof a combined development plan for the extended area and revised plan16/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Orsfor the original area, there is no illegality in making the appointment ofrespondent No. 6.18.Mr. Deshpande would submit that respondent No. 4 wasworking as the Deputy Director of Town Planning special unit, NandedVaghela Municipal Corporation. By the Government Resolution dated02.08.2021, he was shifted in the development plan unit. His suchappointment was not in accordance with order passed in writ petition No.1981 of 2016 and was also not in tune with Section 21 (4A) of the Act. Hewould submit that the order passed in writ petition No. 1981 of 2016 wasrestricted to the draft development plan that was to be prepared for theextended limits. So far as revision of the original plan, Section 21(4A) wasnot applicable. The work of survey, preparation of land use map wasundertaken by respondent No. 4 and in light of such peculiarcircumstances no fault can be found with the State Government ininvoking the powers under Section 162 of the MRTP Act.19.As regards insistence of the petitioners to take further thework prepared by respondent No. 4 is not legally sustainable and iscontrary to the order passed in writ petition No. 1981 of 2016. He had noauthority to undertake the work under Section 21(4A). Mr. Deshpandewould submit that respondent No. 4 was transferred to Chh.Sambhajinagar to work in the development plan unit under the MunicipalCorporation on 02.08.2021. Thereafter, he was transferred as Deputy17/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & OrsDirector of Town Planning, Maitri Kaksh, Maharashtra State, Small ScaleIndustry Development Corporation on 09.12.2022. His such postings andtransfers cannot be a subject matter of adjudication in these proceedings.In fact, he had independently challenged his transfer before theMaharashtra Administrative Tribunal which dismissed his originalapplication. He would thus submit that there is no force much less legalsubstance in the insistence of the petitioners to take forward the taskcompleted by respondent No. 4.20.As regards the allegations regarding alteration in the draftprepared by respondent No. 4, he would submit that the very stand ofthese petitioners alleging drastic alterations in the draft prepared byrespondent No. 6 are objectionable inasmuch as the work completed byrespondent No. 4 has not been officially published at any place and issubmitted before this Court in a sealed cover. The very allegation of thesepetitioners demonstrates that they are acting hand in gloves withrespondent No. 4. He would submit that the modifications done underSection 28(4) have been submitted to the State Government in the form ofreport and in light of Section 31 the State Government may notify themodifications if those are found to be substantial in nature and the furthercourse as laid down under the provisions of the MRTP Act would follow.Therefore, these allegations regarding alterations and modifications arepremature. Hence he would pray to dismiss the petition.18/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Ors21.We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers.22.In order to appreciate the controversy, it would be apposite toreproduce the relevant provisions of the MRTP Act, 1966.Section 21(4A)If at any stage of preparation of the draft Development Plan,the time fixed under Sections 25, 26 and 30 for doing anythingspecified in the said sections lapses, the Planning Authority shall bedeemed to have failed to perform its duty imposed upon it by orunder the provisions of this Act and any work remaining to be doneup to the stage of submission of the draft Development Plan underSection 30 shall be completed by the concerned Divisional JointDirector or Deputy Director of Town Planning and ValuationDepartment or an officer nominated by him not below the rank of anAssistant Director of Town Planning, as the case may be. The saidofficer shall exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of aPlanning Authority which may be necessary for the purpose ofpreparing a Development plan and submitting it to the StateGovernment for sanction and may, notwithstanding anythingcontained in any other law relating to the funds of the PlanningAuthority, recover the cost thereof from such funds:Provided that, the said Officer shall exercise all the powers andperform all the duties of the Planning Authority within such period asmay be specified by an order by the Director of Town Planning,having regard to the stage of preparation of Development plan.Provided further that, the period specified under the first proviso shallnot exceed the original period stipulated under the relevant section.Section 25. Provisions for survey and preparation of existing land-usemapAfter the declaration of intention of a Planning Authority or thesaid Office to prepare a Development plan but not later than sixmonths from the date of such declaration or not later than suchfurther time as the State Government may from time to time extend, aPlanning Authority or the said Officer shall carry out a survey of the19/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Orslands within the jurisdiction of the Planning Authority and prepare anexisting land-use map indicating the existing use of land therein:Provided that, the period so extended shall not in any case exceed oneyear in the aggregate.Section 26. Preparation and publication of notice of draftDevelopment Plan.(1) Subject to the provisions of section 21, a Planning Authority, orthe said officer shall, not later than two years from the date of noticepublished under Section 23, prepare a draft Development plan andpublish a notice in the Official Gazette and in such other manner asmay be determined by it stating that the Development plan has beenprepared. The notice shall state the name of the place where a copythereof shall be available for inspection by the public and that copiesthereof or extracts therefrom certified to be correct shall be availablefor sale to the public at a reasonable price, and inviting objections andsuggestions within a period of Thirty days from the date of notice inthe Office Gazette:Provided that, in case of a Municipal Corporation having populationof ten lakhs or more, as per the latest census, the period for invitingobjections and suggestions shall be sixty days from the date of noticein the Official Gazette.Provided further that, the State Government may, on an application ofthe Planning Authority, by an order in writing, and for reasons to berecorded from time to time, extend the period for preparation andpublication of notice of the draft Development Plan.Provided also that, the period so extended shall not in any case,exceed,(i) twenty-four months, in the aggregate, in case of MunicipalCorporation having population of one crore or more, as per the latestcensus figures;(ii) twelve months, in the-aggregate in case of Municipal Corporationor Planning Authority, as the case may be having population of ten20/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Orslakhs or more but less than one crore, as per the latest census figures;and(iii) six months, in the aggregate, in any other case.(2) The notice shall also state that copies of the following particularsin relation to the Drat Development plan are also available forinspection by the public and copies thereof, or extracts therefromcertified to be correct, are also available for sale to the public at areasonable price at the place so named, namely:-(i) a report on the existing-land-use map and the surveys carried outfor the purpose of preparation of the draft plan;(ii) maps, charts and a report explaining the provisions of the draftDevelopment plan;(ii-a) map showing the planning units or sectors unalterable till theDevelopment Plan is revised;(iii) regulations for enforcing the provisions of the draft Developmentplan and explaining the manner in which the permission fordeveloping any land may be obtained from the Planning Authority orthe said officer, as the case may be;(iv) a report of the stages of development by which it is proposed tomeet any obligations imposed on the Planning Authority by the draftDevelopment plan;(v) an approximate estimate of the cost involved in acquisition oflands required by the Planning Authority for the public purposes, andalso cost of works, as may be necessary.Section 30. Submission of draft Development Planning(1) The Planning Authority or as the case may be, the said Officershall submit the draft Development Plan along with the list ofmodifications or changes made in the draft Development plan undersub section (4) of section 28 to the State Government for sanctionwithin a period of six months from the date of publication of thenotice in the Official Gazette, regarding its preparation under section26.21/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & OrsProvided that, the State Government may, on an application by aPlanning Authority or the said officer, by an order in writing, and foradequate reasons which shall be recorded, extend from time to time,the said period by such further period as may be specified in theorder, but not in any case exceeding,-(i) twenty-four months, in the aggregate, in case of MunicipalCorporation having population of one crore or more, as per the latestcensus figures;(ii) twelve months, in the aggregate, in case of Municipal Corporationhaving population of ten lakhs or more but less than one crore, as perthe latest census figures; and(iii) six months, in the aggregate, in any other case.(2) The particulars referred to in sub-section (2) of section 26 shallalso be, submitted to the State Government.Section 154. Control by State Government(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules orregulations made thereunder, the State Government may, forimplementing or bringing into effect the Central or the StateGovernment programmes, policies or projects or for the efficientadministration of this Act or in the larger public interest, issue, fromtime to time, such directions, or instructions as may be necessary, toany Regional Board, Planning Authority or Development Authorityand it shall be the duty of such authorities to carry out such directionsor instructions within the time-limit, if any, specified in suchdirections or instructions.(2) If in, or in connection with, the exercise of its power anddischarge of its functions by any Regional Board, Planning Authorityor Development Authority under this Act, any dispute arises betweenthe Regional Board, Planning Authority or Development Authority,and the State Government, the decision of the State Government onsuch dispute shall be final.22/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & OrsSection 162. State Government or person appointed by it mayexercise power to perform duty conferred or imposed on PlanningAuthority and disbursement of expenses(1) If in the opinion of the State Government, any Regional Board,Planning Authority or Development Authority is not competent toexercise or perform, for neglects or fails to exercise or perform, anypower conferred or duty imposed upon it by or under any of theprovisions of this Act, State Government or any person or personsappointed in this behalf by the State Government may exercise suchpower or perform such duty.(2) Any expenses incurred by the State Government or by such personin exercising such power or performing such duty shall be paid out ofthe funds of such Board or Authority; and if the Board or Authorityfails to pay the expenses, then the State Government may make anorder directing any person who for the time being has custody of anysuch funds to pay such expenses from such funds, and such personshall be bound to obey such order.23.So far as the facts recited hereinabove are concerned and thechronology of the events, there has been no dispute. The facts which standadmitted can be culled down in sequence as under:-‘The town plan for the original limits of Aurangabadcity (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar) was sanctioned by theState Government in the year 1991. Pursuant to theexpansion of the limits of the city, fringe area was includedin the limits of the Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. Anotification was issued under Section 21(1) of the MRTP Acton 04.02.2016 expressing intention to prepare adevelopment plan for such extended portion. In Writ PetitionNo. 9181 of 2016, the aforementioned order was passed.Though the order of this Court was challenged before the23/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & OrsSupreme Court by respondent – the Municipal Corporation,planning authority, it was dismissed. However, theaforementioned observations were made.’24.In view of above state of affairs, it was imperative that furthersteps were taken as contemplated under Section 21(4A). It is evident thatthe decision of the division bench in writ petition No. 9181 of 2016 hadreached finality and the planning authority having been declared to havefailed to perform its duties under the provisions of the MRTP Act. Theremaining work ought to have been completed by the ‘concerned’Divisional Joint Director or the Deputy Director of Town Planning andvaluation department or an officer nominated by him not below the rankof an Assistant Director of Town Planning. Any of them thereafter, shouldhave exercised all the powers and should have performed all the duties ofthe planning authority which were necessary for the purpose of preparinga development plan for the extended area and should have submitted it tothe State Government for sanction. We need not elaborately deal with thesubmissions of learned senior advocate Mr. Sapkal, learned senioradvocate Mr. Dhorde and learned advocate Mr. Kale for the petitioner fromthe PIL in respect of the persons/authorities which could have been undercontemplation of the legislature when it had consciously used the word‘concerned’ before the Divisional Joint Director or the Deputy Director ofTown Planning and Valuation Department. We also need not go into the24/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Orsdictionary meaning and various citations pressed into services by thelearned advocates as to what in the context the word ‘concerned’ shouldmean. It is well neigh clear that it is not possible and permissible foranybody including the planning authority or the State Government toresile from such statutory mandate whereby the authority mentioned insub-section 4A of Section 21 alone have been conferred with the statutorypowers to complete the task that remains to be done up to the stage ofsubmission of the draft development plan under Section 30.25.It is quite evident that it is only because of the failure of theplanning authority to complete the work of preparation of draftdevelopment plan within the time frame that this provision seeks tosupplement the work of preparation of draft development plan. In view ofsuch plain reading of the provisions in juxtaposition to the decision of thisCourt in writ petition No. 1981 of 2016 as confirmed by the SupremeCourt, there is no room for any debate as to which authority ought to havetaken forward the work of preparation of draft development plan onfailure of the planning authority to do it in the time frame.26.However, as can be appreciated such a straight forwardconclusion needs to be appreciated simultaneously with severalsubsequent variables which have emerged. As noted earlier, though theSupreme Court was not inclined to and dismissed the appeal of theplanning authority against the order in writ petition No. 1981 of 2016,25/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Orssome observations were made as reproduced hereinabove in the latter partof the order.27.These observations would demonstrate that it was submittedbefore the Supreme Court on behalf of Aurangabad Municipal Corporationand the State Government that by the letters dated 15.10.2018 and15.01.2020 issued by the State Government, in exercise of powers underSection 154 of the MRTP Act, it had issued direction for preparing acombined development plan for the original area and for the newly addedarea which has been reproduced in the order of the Supreme Court.28.After noticing the contents of both these communications,observations were made in paragraph No. 13 inter alia to the effect that inany event having regard to the communication/letter dated 15.01.2020 afresh combined development plan for original and extended limits was tobe prepared for Aurangabad city.29.Thought the civil appeal was dismissed, it is pertinent to notethat in paragraph No. 10, the very stand of these petitioners regardingconclusion of the High Court regarding failure of the planning authorityand issuance of directions under Section 41(4A) was considered byreproduction that very provision in the backdrop of such state of affairs. Itis evident that the Supreme Court was made known and was conscious ofthe supervening events whereby the State Government had issued26/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Orsdirection for preparation of a combined development plan for the originaland extended limits of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation.30.True it is that these communications dated 15.10.2018 and15.01.2020 indicate about the State Government having issued suchinstructions in purported exercise of powers under Section 154. However,a plain reading of the provision of Section 154 would reveal that it onlydeclares supremacy of the powers of the State Government by use of anon obstante clause in implementing and bringing into effect the centraland State Government programs, policies, projects and official directionsfrom time to time to the regional board, planning authority, developmentauthority which are bound to follow those instructions. This only speaks ofpower confirmed upon the State Government in implementation of theprovisions of the MRTP Act. However, ex facie, when the legislature in itswisdom has provided a specific mechanism and conferred the powers onthe authorities mentioned under Section 21(4A), on failure of theplanning authority to prepare a draft development plan, in our consideredview, the power of the State Government under Section 154 cannot extendand cannot be interpreted to mean that it can circumvent the statutorymandate under Section 41(4A), more so, when the aforementioned twocommunications dated 15.10.2018 and 15.01.2020 do not expresslydeclare that it was consciously issuing the directions in spite of the orderof this Court in writ petition No. 1981 of 2016.27/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Ors31.It is interesting enough to note that as the directions of thisCourt in writ petition No. 1981 of 2016 as confirmed by the SupremeCourt were not being followed, a contempt petition No. 582 of 2022 wasfiled by the petitioner – Govind. As is mentioned hereinabove whiledisposing of the contempt petition by the order dated 03.08.2023observations were made in paragraph No. 8 when it was emerged that ifthe State Government was appointing an officer under Section 21(4A)and/or under Section 162 of the MRTP Act, the development plan specialunit could submit its work carried out under Section 25 of the MRTP Actto such officer. Such officer could thereafter publish the draft developmentplan under Section 26 and undertake process up to the stage of Section 30by submission of the draft to the State Government under Section 30.It was also noted that this would save the work already done by thespecial unit. It was submitted on behalf of petitioner – Govind that theState Government would agree for such arrangement and accordingly thestatement was made on behalf of the State Government and it wasaccepted by the division bench. Though the order was challenged beforethe Supreme Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (c) No(s).3059 of 2024, leave was granted for withdrawing it with liberty to file asubstantial writ petition before the High Court and accordingly the presentpetition has been filed by the Petitioner – Govind.28/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Ors32.Withdrawal of the appeal with the leave of the SupremeCourt, makes it abundantly clear that it was open for the petitionerGovind to put up a challenge to the impugned order dated 31.08.2023.Consequently, it cannot be said that the observations made by the divisionbench in the contempt proceeding (supra), in any way estops petitionerGovind from raking up the issue again, questioning the impugnedcommunication.33.Coming back to the notification dated 07.11.2023, inpurported exercise of the power under Section 154 of the MRTP Act,respondent no. 6 was appointed to carryout the work pursuant to thedirections of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1981/2016. As is observedherein above, obviously, since respondent no. 4 was already working inpreparation of the draft development plan for the extended area, by virtueof Section 21(4A) of the MRTP Act, he was the concerned officercontemplated therein, who could have carried forward the work. By theimpugned decision dated 07.11.2023, respondent no. 6 was appointed inspite of the fact that he was not the ‘concerned’ officer under Section 21(4A) and could not have been directed the work of preparation of draftdevelopment plan. It also appears that pursuant to a letter issued by aMinister to the Chief Minister of the State dated 02.11.2022, he hadrequested to transfer respondent no. 4 and to appoint respondent no. 6 in29/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Orshis place. Accordingly, respondent no. 4 was transferred by the orderdated 09.12.2022.34.Interestingly, respondent no.4 had put up a challenge to histransfer by submitting an Application No. 1112/2022 before theMaharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Though the tribunal stayed thetransfer order on 16.12.2022, ultimately the original application wasdismissed and the challenge put up by respondent no. 4 before this Courtwas also dismissed and the order reached finality. Obviously, therefore,we cannot go into legality of his transfer, even if it is being pointed outthat there are circumstances to indicate that he was transferred at thebehest of a Minister.35.Pertinently, respondent no. 4 was brought to Aurangabad towork in the development plan unit under the respondent-MunicipalCorporation on 02.08.2021 and was thereafter transferred on 09.12.2022.It was, therefore, not the case that respondent no. 4 for all the while wasthe concerned officer as contemplated under Section 21(4A). Since histransfer to the Municipal Corporation Aurangabad, he was working andengaged in preparation of a draft development plan. Since prior theretohe was never involved in preparation of a draft development plan for theextended area pursuant to the directions in Writ Petition No. 1981/2016,if the submissions and stand on behalf of petitioners are to be accepted,30/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Orseven he could not have been appointed under Section 21(4A), since hewas not the concerned officer as contemplated therein.36.In the backdrop of the above state of affairs, if the StateGovernment in its wisdom had decided by the impugned Governmentresolution dated 31.08.2023, to exercise the powers under Section 162 ofthe MRTP Act, that too in light of the statements that were made with theconsensus of both the sides during Contempt Petition No. 582/2022, asreflected in the order dated 03.08.2023, even if Section 21(4A) wasrelevant and ought to have been resorted to once a direction was issued inWrit Petition No. 1981/2016, the supervening events would indicate thatthe State Government had thought it fit, that instead of going forpreparation of a draft development plan for the extended area andpreparation of the revised plan for the original development plan area in acomposite manner, in our considered view, this court in exercise of thelimited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would beloath in doing so.37.In this regard, it is further pertinent to note that even thepetitioners do not seem to be fair enough in invoking the powers of thisCourt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reason being,admittedly, respondent no. 4, who was involved in the work of preparationof draft development plan, he was merely involved in its preparation and31/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Orshad never published it rather could not have legally published the workundertaken by him anywhere. Admittedly, pursuant to the directions ofthis Court, all his such work is submitted to this Court in a sealed cover,which is not as yet opened and the parties have never been allowed to gothrough it. In the backdrop of this, the learned advocate Mr. Kale for thepetitioner from the PIL could tender across the bar in a spiral boundcompilation running into more than 100 pages and not only learnedadvocate Mr. Kale but even the other Senior Advocates for the petitionerwould take us through this compilation in the process of emphasizing as tohow there have been rampant and substantial changes in the draftdevelopment plan prepared in a composite manner for the originaldevelopment plan limits and the extended limits including the fringe areasof villages Satara and Deolai. If it is a matter of preparation of a draftunder Section 26(1) of the MRTP Act, simultaneously, with the work forpreparation of a draft development plan for the extended area, onewonders as to how these petitioners could lay hands on all these photocopies which in detail cover Annexure II in the form of deviationstatement, (original limit) draft report of proposed land use plan underSection 26(1) of the MRTP Act for the entire area of the MunicipalCorporation including original limit (II Revision) + Additional Area(1st Revision + newly added area), giving all the particulars in respect ofthe proposals in sanctioned development plan (Original Limit) of the year32/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Ors2001, proposals in second revision plan (GIS) and remarks and status.This compilation also contains photo copies of Annexures I to X containingthe substantial changes as contemplated under Section 28(4) of the MRTPAct, prepared sector wise giving all the details.38.Consequently, we find enormous substance in the submissionsmade by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Deshpande for the MunicipalCorporation. If the work completed by respondent no. 4 could not havebeen divulged legally to anybody, the petitioners could not have been ableto argue extensively, pointing out the individual items in the draftprepared by respondent no. 6 and submitted to the State Governmentunder Section 28(4) of the MRTP Act and attempting to demonstrate us asto how it is a substantial modification which would not have been possiblebut for the petitioners being hand in gloves with respondent no. 4. Again,if it is a matter of Section 28 (4) of the MRTP Act, it would be for the StateGovernment to notify the modifications under Section 31, if those arefound to be substantial in nature and the further course would follow. Weare pointing out these circumstances just to demonstrate that thepetitioners while seeking the extraordinary relief under Article 226 of theConstitution of India are not coming with clean hands.39.Needless to state that whether there is any substantial changeor otherwise would be for the State Government to ponder upon and it33/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Orswould be premature to resort to hypothesis and to examine if indeed inthe report submitted to the State Government, there are substantialchanges or otherwise. If at all there is any such substantial change, theaggrieved person would have a cause and can take up the grievance.However, that stage is still to occur.40.The upshot, the submissions on behalf of the petitioners thatwhat was sought to be prevented by the direction of this Court in WritPetition No. 1981/2016, has been achieved circuitously by bringing intopicture the respondent-Municipal Corporation, which is a planningauthority, which otherwise could not have had any reason or occasion toget itself involved in preparation of a development plan in the light ofSection 21(4A), which otherwise could have been a legitimate stand andargument on behalf of the petitioners, the aforementioned circumstancesin light of the supervening events and exercise of the powers by the StateGovernment under Section 162 has changed the entire scenario. Exerciseof that power by the State Government and directing a composite plan tobe prepared for the revision of the original limits and for preparation ofthe draft for the extended limits, in our considered view, has changed thescenario and has mellowed down the consequence and effect of thedirection of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1981/2016.34/35 WP No. 7515 of 2024 & Ors41.We are of the considered view that there are not enoughcircumstances and material to question the decision of the StateGovernment.42.All the Writ Petitions and the Public Interest Litigation aredismissed.43.Rule is discharged. [ PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR ]JUDGE[ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGEjhs35/35