vil Appeal Nos
2780 81 of 1982 From the Judgment and Order dated 116
1982 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No3386 and 3387 of 1981 KS Cooper Dr YS Chitale Mrs PS Shroff SS Shroff and Mrs Kiran Chaudhary for the Appellants
M Veerappa AK Sharma KN Singh SS JavaIi GP Shivaprakash and BP Singh for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY J
Bangalore was a beautiful city once
It was a city with magic and charm with elegant avenues gorgeous flowers lovely gardens and plentiful spaces
Not now
That was before the invasion of concrete and steel of soot and smoke of high rise and the fast buck
Gone are the flowers gone are the trees gone are the avenues
gone are the spaces
We are now greeted with tail puffing 1062 chimneys and monstrous high rise buildings both designed to hurt the eye the environment and the man
But they are thought by many as symbols of progress and modernity
They have come to stay
Perhaps they are necessary
Nostalgic sentiments we suppose must yield to modern societal re quirements
Smoking Chimneys produce much needed goods
High rise buildings save much scarce space
They have a place in the scheme of things
But where how to what extent at what cost are the questions raised by some aggrieved citizens of Bangalore
They want congestion to be prevented population density to be controlled lung spaces to be provided where people can breath existing recreation al facilities to be preserved and improved pollution and health hazards to be removed civic and social amenities to be provided etc
All these require a balanced use of avail able land
It is with that object that the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act was enacted in 1961 and it is with the interpretation of some of the provisions of that Act that we are concerned in these appeals
The problem and the pain have been well brought out by the Chairman of the Bangalore Urban Arts Commission 4th respondent before the High Court in the Chairman s response to an editorial in a local newspaper
It is extracted in the Additional Statement filed in the High Court by the Writ Petitioners
He says when we speak of saving Bangalore s skyline and its cherished character we are apt to be misun derstood even by some well meaning citizens
Vested inter ests and busybodies with an easy conscience would in any case rubber wall any consideration of argument because the present time with the skyrocketing property value is a great opportunity for them to make hay
They would rather sell the city than dwell on its future
We are not speaking only of the central areas of the city even when we regard them understandably enough as more precious than the rest of the city
Nor are we trying to guard the City s supposed colonial solitude which we know vanished many decades ago
We are not afflicted with irrational nostalgia and have no fetish about bungalows and court yards
We are aware of the dynamics of a modern city
All that we want and it was ably summed up in your editori al is that we must prevent any more ugliness and haphazard ness of which we have had more than what Bangalore can take if it is to stay as the City Beautiful with its planned spaciousness and still largely unclustered skyline
We also want without any further delay a vigilant clearly speltout and scrupulously honest system to ensure an orderly growth of the city in Keeping with the capacity of its services like water supply drainage and roads
1063 I entirely agree that for new areas we must provide for more density of population if we are to get adequate mileage from per capital expenditure and if we are to release sufficient lung spaces for recreational and community activ ities
In fact we have long back suggested to City Planners to plan for self contained and self sufficient clusters of multiple storey blocks with their own plazas shopping and recreational centers in carefully selected locations and in keeping with the available services
Again there is no doubt that coverage per plot must be systematically reduced through imaginatively formulated bye laws if we are to continue the garden city character of the City s new areas
It is utterly mystifying however that such obviously valid thoughts and suggestions should end with the plea for concentrated growth presumely in the central area of the city and preferably with high rise buildings
Such growth which is bound to obliterate what we have still left of this beautiful city and put further strains on its traffic water supply and drainage is cer tainly not going to help the proletarian office goer or house seeker
It will serve only the big time builder the high spending rich and last but not least the fast buck chasing wheeler dealers and busybodies mentioned above Now that the State Government has announced a clear policy in this behalf there is no reason why we should not expect the best
This Commission has made its own contribu tion to the formulation of a new set of building bye laws which aim at the much needed regulation on fully modern lines of this City s future growth and which leave minimum scope for corruption
We hope that these will be adopted soon
We look forward to a new approach and a new era free from the stench of corruption
We hope that these will be adopted soon
We look forward to a new approach and a new era free from the strench of corruption innuendoes and loose talk of motives and characterised by future think ing
After all we have the City Beautiful because of the future thinking and hard work of the planners and adminis trators Raj Mahal Vilas Extension is a sparsely developed area of the city of Bangalore which the Bangalore Improvement Trust Board desired to develop under the provisions of the city of Bangalore Improvement Act 1945
Land was acquired and plots were allotted to several people
A lay out was prepared and conditions were imposed for construction of houses on the sites
The present appellants as well as the petitioners before the High Court were all of them allottees 1064 from the Improvement Trust Board
One of the conditions of allotment was that the sites were not to be sub divided and not more than one dwelling house was to be constructed on each of the sites
Apparently multistoreyed high rise buildings were not within the contemplation of either the Improvement Trust Borad or the allottees at the time of allotment
However the petitioners before the High Court were dismayed to find such high rise buildings coming up in the Raj Mahal Vilas Extension
Apprehending that there was going to be an invasion of the privacy of the residents of the locality a disturbance of the peace and tranquility of the residential area an interference with basic civic amenities consequent on haphazard rise of high rise build ings and exposing of the residents to all manners of health hazards and interference with their way of living a number of residents of the locality submitted a memorandum to the Governor and the Chief Minister of the State to take appro priate action to prevent the construction of high rise buildings in a residential area such as the Raj Mahal Vilas Extension
There was no response from the authorities
In desperation some of the persons who submitted the memoran dum resorted to Public Interest Litigation  and filed the writ petitions out of which the present appeals arise
Their principal complaint was that the Outline Development Plan for Bangalore which had been published in the prescribed manner had been ignored by the authorities in granting permission to the appellants to construct the high rise buildings
The first of the grounds mentioned in the writ petitions was that permits had been granted to construct eight floor residential buildings going to a height of 80 feet whereas under the regulations the maximum permissible height of a building was only 55 feet
The inconveniences discomforts and the hazards to which such a high rise build ing in a residential locality would expose the other resi dents of the locality were explained in the writ petition and writs were sought to quash the permits granted for construction and to restrain the present appellants from constructing the eight floor buildings and to direct them to demolish the structures already put up
There was also a prayer to require the Bangalore Urban Arts Commission to recommend to the State of Karnataka against the construction of high rise buildings in any of the existing extensions of Bangalore
Writ Petition No 3386 of 1981 out of which arises Civil Appeal No 2780 of 1982 and Writ Petition No 3387 of 1981 out of which arises Civil Appeal No 2781 of 1982 were filed on 25281
In Writ Petition No 3386 of 1981 an interim order was initially refused by a learned Single Judge but on appeal a Division Bench of the High Court granted an interim order restraining the appellants in Civil Appeal No 2780 of 1982 from raising further construc tion
However in the special leave petition filed by 1065 the appellants the order of the learned Single Judge was restored subject to an undertaking given by the appellants that in the event of the original writ petition being al lowed and the construction being required to be pulled down the appellants will not raise any objection and will not plead the construction during the pendency of the writ petition as a defence to the pulling down of the construc tion
The order of the Supreme Court was made on 2681
In WP No 3387 of 1981 the High Court made an interim order on 24781 permitting the appellants in Civil Appeal No 2781 of 1982 to proceed with the construction subject to the appellants giving an undertaking similar to the undertaking given by the appellants in the other connected appeal
We find from the judgment of the High Court that in WP No 3386 of 1981 only excavation work had been done by the time of the filing of the petition and that the work was complet ed only after the undertaking was given to the Supreme Court
In the other case the ground floor had been con structed and pillars had been put up for the next floor when the writ petition was filed
The work was completed after the undertaking was given to the Division Bench of the High Court
We may add that again in this Court when the appel lants sought interim orders to enable them to complete the construction during the pendency of the present appeals they gave an undertaking that they would complete the construc tion work of the 4th 5th 6th 7th and 8th floors at their own risk and cost and that they will raise no objection whatever to this Court passing an order for demolition of the said floors if the Court was ultimately inclined to pass such an order and that they would claim no compensation for demolition if ordered
The present appellants contested the writ petitions
The writ petitions appeared to have been argued in the first instance before a learned single Judge who after hearing the petitions for some considerable time referred them for hearing by a Division Bench
The Division Bench commenced hearing the writ petitions on 16382 and on 22382 a further contention was raised by the appellants that the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations were never published consequently they have never become effective and therefore there was no need for any compliance with the requirements of the plan and the regulations
As it turns out this is the only contention which was finally argued before the High Court and before us
The High Court overruled the contention and declared the licences granted for construction illegal and directed the Commissioner Corporation of the City of Bangalore to modify the licences so as to bring them in conformity with the Outline Develop ment Plan and the Zonal Regulations appended thereto promul gated under Section 134 of the Karnataka 1066 Town and Country Planning Act and take all consequential action in accordance with law
Shri Cooper learned counsel for the appellants urged that publication of the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations in the prescribed manner that is in the Offi cial Gazette was mandatory under Section 134 and that failure to so publish the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations rendered them ineffective
The licences already granted to the appellants could not be cancelled or directed to be modified so as to be in accord with the Outline Devel opment Plan and the Regulations
It was further urged that the Regulations were distinct from the Outline Development Plan and that in the case of the Regulations there was no attempt whatever at publication
It was submitted that the High Court was in error in holding that Section 76J cured whatever defect there was in regard to the publication of the Plan and the Regulations
It was said that the High Court was also in error in holding that the Outline Develop ment Plan and the Regulations became effective as soon as they were approved by the Government under Section 133 of the Act irrespective of the date of publication under Sec tion 134
On the other hand it was submitted by Shri Javali learned counsel for the writ petitioners in the High Court that there was sufficient publication of the Plan and the Regulations that the Plan and the Regulations were always kept available for inspection at the office of the concerned authorities and that it was not the case of the appellants originally that there was no publication and that they had no knowledge of the Plan and the Regulations
It was only after thought put forward in the course of the arguments at the final stage of the hearing of the writ petitions
It was submitted that such defect as there was in the publication of the Plan and the Regulations was effec tively cured by Section 76J and the passage of time
It was also pointed out that the Regulations were an integral part of the Outline Development Plan
In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties it is necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions
In 1961 the Bangalore Metropolitan Planning Board was formed
The Board prepared an Outline Development Plan For short ODP
In February 1963 the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act 1961 came into force with effect from January 15 1965
Section 81 Aa of the Act provides that the Outline Development Plan for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area prepared by the Bangalore Metropolitan Planning Board shall be deemed to be the Outline Develop 1067 ment Plan of the Planning Area comprising the City of Banga lore prepared under the Act by the Planning Authority of the Area
Section 81 a further provides that the said plan along with the particulars specified in clauses ii iii iv and v of Section 122 shall be published and submit ted to the State Government for provisional approval
Sec tion 81 Ab provides that on receipt of the plan and particulars the State Government shall after making such modifications as it deems fit return the plan and the particulars to the Planning Authority which shall thereupon take further action in accordance with the provisions of Section 13
Section 23 defines land use  to mean the major use to which a plot of land is being used on any specified date
Section 24 defines notification  to mean a notification published in the Official Gazette Planning Area  is de fined by Section 26 to mean the area declared to be a local planning area under the Act in the case of the local planning area comprising the city of Bangalore Planning Authority  is defined to mean the Planning Authority consti tuted under the Act
Section 29 defines prescribed  to mean prescribed by rules made under the Act
Section 211 defines regulations  to mean the Zonal Regulations govern ing land use made under the Act
Chapter III of the Act deals with Outline Development Plan ODP
Section 91 empowers the Planning Authority to prepare and publish in the prescribed manner an Outline Development Plan for the area within its jurisdiction and submit it to the State Government for provisional approval
Section 94 prescribes that a copy of the ODP sent to the State Government under sub section1 shall be kept open for inspection by the public at the head office of the Planning Authority before carrying out a survey for the purpose of preparing an ODP for such an area
A Planning Authority is required by Section 10 to make a declaration of its intention to prepare such plan and to despatch a copy of the same to the State Government for publication in the Official Gazette and is also required to publish in the prescribed manner an invitation to the public to make sug gestions
All suggestions made in response to the invitation within the prescribed period are required to be considered by the Planning Authority before submitting the plan to the State Government
Section 12 deals with the contents of Outline Development Plan and we think it necessary to ex tract here the whole of the section
Section 13 deals with approval of the Outline Development Plan and we think that it is necessary to extract Section 13 also
Sections 12 and 13 are as follows 1068 section 12
Contents of Outline Development Plan 1 An Outline Development Plan shall generally indicate the manner in which the development and improvement of the entire planning area within the jurisdiction of the Planning Authority are to be carried out and regulated
In particular it shall include a a general land use plan and zoning of land use for residential commercial indus trial agricultural recreational educational and other public purposes b proposals for roads and highways c proposals for the reservation of land for the purposes of the Union any State any local authority or any other authority estab lished by law in India d proposals for declaring certain areas as areas of special control development in such areas being subject to such regulations as may be made in regard to building line height of buildings floor area ratio architectural features and such other particulars as may be prescribed e such other proposals for public or other purposes as may from time to time be approved by the Planning Authority or directed by the State Government in this behalf
Explanation building line  means the line up to which the plinth of a building adjoining a street may lawfully extend and includes the lines prescribed if any in any scheme
2 The following particulars shall be published and sent to the State Government through the Director along with the Outline Development Plan namely i a report of the surveys carried out by the Planning Authority before the preparation of such plan ii a report explaining the provisions of such Plan iii regulations in respect of each land use zone to enforce 1069 the provisions of such plan and explaining the manner in which necessary permission for developing any land can be obtained from the Planning Authority iv a report of the stages by which it is proposed to meet the obligations imposed on the Planning Authority by such a plan v an approximate estimate of the cost in volved in the acquisition of lands reserved for public purposes S13
Approval of the Outline Development Plan 1 On receipt of the Outline Develop ment Plan with the particulars referred to in Section 12 from the Planning Authority under sub section 1 of Section 9 or after such plan and particulars are prepared and pub lished under subsection 2 of Section 9 the State Government after making such modifica tions as it deems fit or as may be advised by the Director shall return through the Direc tor the plan and the particulars to the Planning Authority which shall thereupon pub lish by notification the plan and the par ticulars inviting public comments within one month of such publication
2 If within one month of the publication under subsection 1 any member of the public communicates in writing to the Planning Au thority any comments on the plan and the regulations the Planning Authority shall consider such comments and resubmit the plan and the regulations to the State Government through the Director with recommendations for such modifications in the plan and regulations as it considers necessary in the light of the public comments made on the plan and regula tions
3 The State Government after receiving the plan and the regulations and the recommen dation for modifications from the Planning Authority shall in consultation with the Director give its final approval to the plan and the regulations with such modifications as the Director may advice in the light of the comments and the recommendations of the Plan ning Authority or otherwise
4 The Planning Authority shall then publish in the 1070 prescribed manner the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations as approved by the Govern ment
The plan and the particulars shall be permanently displayed in the offices of the Director and the Planning Authority and a copy shall be kept available for inspection of the public at the office of the Planning Authori ty
 Section 14 speaks of Enforcement of the Outline Devel opment Plan and the Regulations 
Section 141 prescribes that on and from the date on which a declaration of inten tion to prepare an outline is published under sub section 1 of Section 10 every land use every change in land use and every development in the area shall conform to the provisions of the Act the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations as finally approved by the State Government under subsection 3 of Section 13
The only other provision of the Act to which reference is necessary is what we may call the Ganga clause Section 76J which provides for Validation of acts and proceedings 
It is as follows 76 J Validation of acts and proceedings No act done or proceeding taken under this Act shall be questioned on the ground merely of a the existence of any vacancy in or any defect in the constitution of the Board or any Planning Authority b any person having ceased to be a member c any person associated with the Board or any planning authority under section 4F having voted in contravention of the said section or d the failure to serve a notice on any person where no substantial injustice has resulted from such failure or e any omission defect or irregularity not affecting the merits of the case
 We may also refer here to the rules relating to publica tion
Rule 32 provides for publication of Outline Develop ment Plan under sub 1  According to Hindu tradition the waters of the Ganga purify cleans the sins and remedy all insufficiencies
1071 section 1 and sub section 2 of Section 9
It prescribes that the publication shall be made by making a copy of the Plan available for inspection and displaying a notice in Form II a at the office of the Planning Authority and b at such other places as may be specified by the Planning Authority
The Planning Authority is also required to pub lish a notice in Form II in the Official Gazette and in one or more newspapers
The publication under Section 92 is also required to be made in the same manner except that reference to Planning Authority is to be construed as a reference to the Director
Rule 33 provides for Publication of Outline Development Plan and Regulations under Section 134  and stipulates that the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations as approved by the State Government under subsection 3 of Section 13 shall be published in the Official Gazette
Form 11 referred to in Rule 32 is as follows FORM NO
II Rule 32 NOTICE OF PUBLICATION OF OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Notice is hereby given that an Outline Development Plan of    area has been prepared under the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act 1961 Mysore Act 11 of 1963 and a copy thereof is available for inspection at the office of the Planning Authority during office hours
If there be any objection or suggestion in respect of the Outline Development Plan it should be lodged on or before the  
Every such objection or suggestion should either be presented in the office of the Planning Authority or sent by registered post to the Planning Authority
 We said earlier that the Outline Development Plan for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area was prepared by the Banga lore Metropolitan Planning Board and that under Section 81J of the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act it was deemed to be the Outline Development Plan of the planning area comprising the city of Bangalore prepared under the Act by the Planning Authority of such 1072 area
A Notice of publication of Outline Development Plan  was published in the Mysore Gazette on 21121967 in Form II
It was as follows OFFICE OF THE PLANNING AUTHORITY BANGALORE CITY PLANNING AREA BAN GALORE 9 Notice of Publication of Outline Development Plan Notice is hereby given that an Outline Development Plan of Bagalore City Planning Area has been prepared under the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act 1961 Mysore Act 11 of 1963 and a copy thereof is available for inspection at the office of the Planning Authority in Seshadri Road Bangalore City during office hours
If there be any objection or sugges tion in respect of the Outline Development Plan it should be lodged on or before the 15th day of February 1968
Every such objection or suggestion should either be presented in the office of the Planning Authority or sent by registered post to the Planning Authority
K Balasubramanyam CHAIRMAN After the State Government provisionally approved the Plan Notice of publication of Outline Development Plan  was published in the Mysore Gazette dated 101068 again in Form II
The Notification was in the following terms OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN PLANNING AUTHORITY BANGALORE CITY PLANNING AREA BANGALORE 9 Notice of Publication of Outline Development Plan
Notice is hereby given that an Out line Development Plan of Bangalore City Plan ning Area has been prepared under the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act 1961 Mysore Act 11 of 1963
The said Plan has been provi sion 1073 ally approved by the Government of Mysore as per Section 131 of the above Act
A copy of the above approved plan and the report are available for inspection at the office of the Planning Authority in Seshadri Road Bangalore City during office hours
If there be any objection or sugges tion in respect of the Outline Development Plan it should be lodged within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice in the Gazette
Every such objection or suggestion should either be presented in the office of the Planning Authority or sent by registered post to the Planning Authority
CHAIRMAN PLAN NING AUTHORITY It appears that in response to the invitation to file objec tions as many as 600 representations and objections were received from individuals institutions associations Chambers of Commerce etc
The Outline Development Plan was finally approved by the Government and a notification to that effect was published in the Mysore Gazette dated 137
1972 in the following terms OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN PLANNING AUTHORITY BANGALORE CITY PLANNING AREA BANGALORE 9
Dated 27th June 1972
Notice of Publication of Outline Development Plan
In pursuance of Rule 33 of the Mysore Planning Authority Rules 1965 Notice is hereby given that an Outline Development Plan of Bangalore City Planning Area has been prepared under the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act 1961 Mysore Act 11 of 1963
The said plan has been finally approved by the Govern ment of Mysore as per Section 133 of the above Act
A copy of the above approved plan and the report are available for inspection at the office of the Planning Authority in Sesha dri Road Bangalore City during office hours
1074 MS Ramachandra Chairman Planning Authority
 It is seen that at every stage the public were informed by notices published in the Official Gazette that the Outline Development Plan was available for inspection at the office of the Planning Authority though it is not disputed that the Plan and the Regulations themselves were never published as such in the Gazette
The question for consideration is whether the intimation to the public through the Official Gazette that the Outline Development Plan was available for inspection at the office of the Planning Authority is a sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 134 regulating the publication of the approved Plan and Regula tions There can be no doubt about the proposition that where a law whether Parliamentary or subordinate demands compli ance those that are governed must be notified directly and reliably of the law and all changes and additions made to it by various processes
Whether law is viewed from the stand point of the conscientious good man  seeking to abide by the law or from the standpoint of Justice Holmes s Uncon scientious bad man  seeking to avoid the law law must be known that is to say it must be so made that it can be known
We know that delegated or subordinate legislation is all pervasive and that there is hardly any field of activity where governance by delegated or subordinate legislative powers is not as important if not more important than governance by Parliamentary legislation
But unlike Parlia mentary Legislation which is publicly made delegated or subordinate legislation is often made unobtrusively in the chambers of a Minister a Secretary to the Government or other official dignitary
It is therefore necessary that subordinate legislation in order to take effect must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner whether such publication or promulgation is prescribed by the parent statute or not
It will then take effect from the date of such publication or promulgation
Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or promulgation that mode must be followed
Where the parent statute is silent but the subordinate legislation itself prescribes the manner of publication such a mode of publication may be sufficient if reasonable
If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode of publi cation it will take effect only when it is published through the customarily recognised official channel namely the Official Gazette or some other reasonable mode of publi cation
There may be subordinate legislation which is con cerned with a 1075 few individuals or is confined to small local areas
In such cases publication or promulgation by other means may be sufficient
 In the present case Section 134 has prescribed the mode of publication of the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations
It requires the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations to be published in the prescribed manner and the Plan and particulars to be permanently displayed in the offices of the Director and the Planning Authority and a copy to be kept available for the inspection of the public at the office of the Planning Authority
The particulars referred to we presume are the particulars mentioned in Section 122 of the Act consisting of various reports including the Regulations The prescribed manner  is what is prescribed by Rule 33 that is publication in the Offi cial Gazette
If we now turn to Section 91 and 92 we find that there too the the Outline Development Plan is required to be published in the prescribed manner 
The prescribed manner for the purposes of sub sections 1 and 2 of Section 9 is that prescribed by Rule 32
Rule 32 we have seen prescribes making a copy of the Plan available for inspection publishing a notice in Form No II in the Offi cial Gazette and in one or more newspapers and displaying a notice in Form No II at the office of Planning Authority and at other specified places
It is true that Rule 33 speaks of publication of approved Outline Development Plan and Regulations in the Official Gazette suggestive of a requirement that the Outline Development Plan and Regula tions should bodily be incorporated in the Official Gazette
But if the entire scheme of the Act and the rules is consid ered as an integral whole it becomes obvious that what Section 134 contemplates besides permanently displaying the plan and the particulars in the offices of Director and Planning Authority and keeping available a copy for the inspection of the public at the office of Planning Authority is a public notice to the general public that the Plan and Regulations are permanently displayed and are available for inspection by the public
Such public notice is required to be given by a publication in the Official Gazette This is how it was understood by the authorities and everyone else concerned and this is how it was done in the present case
This appears to be a reasonable and a rational interpreta tion on Section 134 and Rule 33 in the setting and the scheme
We are of the view that there was compliance with the requirements of Section 134 and Rule 33
We have earlier mentioned that Section 131 requires the provision al Outline Development Plan  See Narayana Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh  1969 1 Andhra Weekly Reporter 77
1076 and particulars to be published by notification in the Official Gazette with a view to invite comments from the public
What was published in the present case under Section 131 was also a notice in Form No II and not the whole of the Plan and particulars
Such publication evoked considera ble public response
As many as 600 representations from individuals and institutions were received
That is why we said that everyone concerned that is the Government the Director the Planning Authority and the public individual and institution alike thought that publication of a notice in the Gazette inviting the attention of the public to the display and the availability for inspection of the Plan and particulars was all that was contemplated by the provisions providing for publication
We do not think that there is any reason or justification for us to adopt an interpretation which departs from common understanding of the Act and the Rules
Shri Cooper invited our attention to Shalagram Jhajharia vs National Co Ltd  Ors and Firestone Tyre  Rubber Co vs Synthetics  Chemicals Ltd  Ors 1971 41 Company cases 377 to urge that offer of inspection cannot be a substitute for publication
We do not think that these two cases are of assistance to Shri Cooper
What was laid down in those cases was the mandatory require ment of a full and frank disclosure of the relevant facts in the explanatory note attached to the notice convening a general meeting of the company cannot be circumvented by an offer of inspection
Another case to which Shri Cooper drew our attention was Municipal Board Pushkar vs State Trans port Authority Rajasthan  Ors 1963 Suppl
2 SCR 373
In that case the question arose as to what was to be treated as the date of the order of the Regional Transport Authority
Was it the date of the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority or was it the date on which the resolu tion was brought into effect by publication of the notifica tion The answer was that it was the date of the publication of the notification
In Joint Chief Controller of Imports  Exports Madras vs Ms Aminchand Mutha etc
  another case on which Shri Cooper relied the Court held that there was no order prohibiting the import of fountain pens since in fact no such order had been pub lished and no such order was brought to the notice of the Court
All that was available was an entry nil  against fountain pens in the declaration of policy as to import
We are unable to see how these two cases can be of any help to Shri Cooper
Shri Cooper also invited our attention to cases drawing a distinction between mandatory and directory statu tory requirements but those cases again are of no avail to him in the view that we have taken
We also desire to state that the effect of the non perfor 1077 mance of a duty imposed by a statute in the manner pre scribed by the statute is not discovered by a simple answer to the question whether the statute is mandatory or directo ry
These are not simple chemical reactions
The question whether a statutory requirement is mandatory or directory cannot itself be answered easily as was pointed out more than a century ago in Liverpool Borough vs Turner  Many considerations must prevail and the object and the context are the most important
The High Court was of the view that such defect as there was in regard to publication of the Plan was cured by Sec tion 76J  the Omnibus Curative clause to which we earlier made a reference as the Ganga  clause
Provisions similar to s76J are found in several modern Acts and their object is to put beyond challenge defects of constitution of statu tory bodies and defects of procedure which have not led to any substantial prejudice
We are inclined to agree with the High Court that a defective publication which has otherwise served its purpose is not sufficient to render illegal what is published and that such defect is cured by Section 76J
The High Court relied on the two decisions of this Court Bangalore Woollon Cotton  Silk Mills Co Ltd Bangalore vs Corporation of the City of Bangalore and Municipal Board Sitapur vs Prayag Narain Saigal  Firm Moosaram Bhagwandas  In the first case objection was raised to the imposition of octroi duty on the ground that there was failure to notify the final resolution of the imposition of the tax in the Government Gazette as required by Section 982 of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corporation Act
A Constitution Bench of the Court held that the failure to publish the final resolution in the Official Gazette was cured by S381b of the Act which provided that no act done or proceeding taken under the Act shall be questioned merely on the ground of any defect or irregulari ty in such act or proceeding not affecting the merits of the case
The Court said that the resolution had been pub lished in the newspapers and was communicated to those affected and failure to publish the resolution did not affect the merits of its imposition and failure to notify the resolution in the Gazette was not fatal to the legality of the imposition
In the second case it was held that the non publication of a special resolution imposing a tax was a mere irregularity since the inhabitants had no fight to object to special resolutions and had otherwise clear notice of the imposition of the tax
It is true that both these cases relate to non publication of a resolution regarding imposition of a tax where the imposition of a tax was other wise well known to the public
In the present case the situation may not be the same but there certainly was an effort to bring the Plan 1078 and regulations to the notice of the public by giving notice of the Plan in the Official Gazette
Non publication of the Plan in the Official Gazette was therefore a curable defect capable of being cured by Section 76J
It is here that the failure of the appellants to plead want of publication or want to knowledge in the first instance assumes importance
In the answer to the Writ Petitions the appellants took up the substantial plea that they had complied with the re quirements of the Outline Development Plan and the Regula tions but not that they had no knowledge of any such re quirement
It can safely be said that the defect or irregu larity did not affect the merits of the case
Finally one last submission of Shri Cooper requires to be examined
Shri Cooper submitted that Section 131 used the words the Plan and the particulars Section 132 used the Words the Plan and the Regulations Section 133 used the words the Plan and the Regulations and Section 134 used the words the Outline Development Plan and the Regu lations as well as the words the Plan and the Regula tions
This according to Shri Cooper signified that the particulars and the Regulations are not to be treated as part of the Plan but as creations distinct from the Plan
We do not think that we are entitled to split the unity and identity of the plan as suggested by the learned counsel
The Outline Development Plan and the Regulations are not distinct from each other
The regulations are born out of the Plan and the Plan thrives on the Regulations
The Plan is the basis for the Regulations and the Regulations are what make the plan effective
Without the Regulations the plan virtually becomes a dead letter
The reference in the four clauses of Section 13 whenever the word Plan  or the Outline Development Plan  is used is to the core plan without the particulars and the Regulations and not the whole of the Outline Development Plan which must include the Regulations
What the different phraseology is meant to convey is to emphasise the different parts of the Plan which have to be forwarded to the Government considered by the Government made available for inspection by the public as the case may be and to the extent necessary
Merely because the words and Regulations are added to the word Plan  the Regulations are not to be treated as not constituting part of the Plan even as when a building is sold along with the fixtures it does not mean that the fixtures are not treated as part of the building
Shri Cooper drew the dis tinction between the Plan and the Regulations to suggest that in the notice published on 27672 the Planning Au thority mentioned that the Plan was available for inspection at the office of the Planning Authority but made no refer ence to the Regulations and therefore it must be consid ered that the Regulations were not made 1079 available for inspection and so never published
We do not think that it is possible to reach the conclusion suggested by Shri Cooper from the absence of the reference to the Regulations in the notice
The Authorities justifiably always treated the Plan as including the Regulations and we are satisfied that what was kept for inspection was the Plan along with the Regulations
Shri Cooper argued that neither the Municipal Corpora tion nor any other civic authority appeared to be aware of the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations as was evident from the circumstance that in the years that passed since the approval of the Plan by the Government and before the writ petitions were filed as many as 57 building li cences had admittedly been issued in contravention of the Regulations
It may be that notwithstanding the Regulations some building licences were granted in contravention of the Regulations but that only exposes the deplorable laxity of the concerned authorities and emphasises the need for great er public vigilance
The present Writ Petitions we hope are forerunners of such vigilance
In the result we find no merit in the appeals which are accordingly dismissed with costs
The judgment of the High Court will now be given effect by the authorities taking note of the several undertakings given to the High Court and this Court at various stages
APJ Appeals dismissed


Summary:
In 1961 the Bangalore Metropolitan Board was formed
The Board prepared an Outline Development Plan ODP
In February 1963 the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act 1961 came into force with effect from January 15 1965
Section 81 Aa of the Act provides that the Outline Devel opment Plan for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area prepared by the Bangalore Metropolitan Planning Board shall be deemed to be the Outline Development Plan of the Planning Area com prising the City of Bangalore prepared under the Act by the Planning Authority of the Area
Section 81 Aa further provides that the said plan alongwith the particulars specified in clauses ii iii iv 1055 and v of section 122 shall be published and submitted to the State Government for provisional approval
Section 81 Ab provides that on receipt of the plan and the particulars the State Government shall after making such modifications as it deems fit return the plan and the particulars to the Planning Authority for taking further action in accordance with the provisions of section 13
Section 13 deals with approval of the Outline Development Plan
Section 76J provides for validation of acts and proceedings
Rule 32 of the Mysore Planning Authority Rules 1965 provides for publication of Outline Development Plan under subs1 and sub s2 of s9
 It prescribes that the publication shall be made by making a copy of the Plan available for inspection and displaying a notice in Form II a at the office of the Planning Authority and b at such other places as may be specified by the Planning Authority
The Planning Authority is also required to publish a notice in Form II in the Official Gazette and in one or more newspapers
The Publica tion under s92 is also required to be made in the same manner
Rule 33 provides for Publication of Outline Devel opment Plan and Regulations under s134 and stipulates that the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations as approved by the State Government under sub s3 ors13 shall be published in the Official Gazette
A Notice of publication of Outline Development Plan  was published in the Mysore Gazette dated 21121967 in Form II
After the State Government provisionally approved the Plan Notice of publication of Outline Development Plan  was published in the Mysore Gazette dated 10101968 again in Form II
In response to the invitation to file objec tions as many as 600 representations and objections were received from individuals institutions associations Chambers of Commerce etc
The Outline Development Plan was finally approved by the Government and a notification to that effect was published in the Mysore Gazette dated 13772
The Bangalore Improvement Trust Board desired to develop Raj Mahal Vilas Extension under the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement Act 1945
Land was acquired and plots were alloted to several people
A lay out plan was prepared and conditions were imposed for construction of houses on the sites
One of the conditions of allotment was that the sites were not to be sub divided and not more than one dwelling house was to be constructed on each of the sites
Apparently multistoreyed high rise buildings were not within the contemplation of either the Improvement Trust Board or the allotees at the time of allotment
However High buildings came up
A number of residents of the locali ty submitted a memorandum to the Governor and 1056 the Chief Minister to take an appropriate action to prevent construction of high rise buildings in residential area of Raj Mahal Vilas Extention
Since there was no response some persons resorted to Public Interest Litigation by filing writ petitions alleging that the Outline Development Plan for Bangalore which had been published in the prescribed manner had been ignored by the authorities in granting permission to the appellants to construct the high rise buildings and that permits had been granted to construct eight floor residential buildings going to a height of 80 feet whereas under the regulations the maximum permissible height of a building was only 55 feet
Writs were sought to quash the permits granted for construction to restrain the appellants from constructing the eight floor buildings to direct them to demolish the structures already put up and to require the Bangalore Urban Area Commission to recommend to the State Government against the construction of highrise buildings in any of the existing extensions of Banglore
The High Court allowed the petitions and declared the licences granted for constructions illegal and directed the Commissioner Corporation of the City of Bangalore to modify the licences os as to bring them in confirmity with the Outline Development Plan and the Zonal Regulations appended thereto promulgated under s134 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and take all consequential actions in accordance with law
In the appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellants it was contended 1 that publication of the Outline Devel opment Plan and the Regulations in the prescribed manner that is in the Official Gazette was mandatory under section i34 and that failure to so publish the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations rendered them ineffective
The licences already granted to the appellants could not be cancelled or directed to be modified so as to be in accord with the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations 2 that the Regulations were distinct from the Outline Develop ment Plan and that in the case of the Regulations there was no attempt whatever at publication 3 that the High Court was in error in holding that s76 J cured whatever defect there was in regard to the publication of the Plan and the Regulations and that the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations became effective as soon as they were approved by the Government under section 133 of the Act irrespective of the date of publication under s134 4 that offer of inspection cannot be a substitute for publication 5 that section 131 used the words the Plan and the particulars section 132 used the words the Plan and the the Regulations
s133 used the words the Plan and the Regulations and s134 used the words the Out 1057 line Development Plan and the Regulations as well as the words the Plan and the Regulations and this signified that the particulars and the Regulations are not to be treated as part of the plan but as creations distinct from the Plan
In the notice published on 2761972 the Planning Authority mentioned that the Plan was available for inspection at the office of the planning authority but made no reference to the Regulations and therefore it must be considered that the Regulations were not made available for inspection and so never published and 6 that neither the Municipal Corporation nor any other Civic Authority appeared to be aware of the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations as was evident from the circumstances that in the years that passed since the approval of the Plan by the Government and before the writ petitions were filed as many as 57 build ings licences had admittedly been issued in contravention of the Regulations
On behalf of the respondents it was contended 1 that there was sufficient publication of the Plan and the Regula tions that the Plan and Regulations were always kept avail able for inspection at the office of the concerned authori ties and that it was not the case of the appellants origi nally that there was no publication and that they had no knowledge of the Plan and the Regulations 2 that the defect in the publication of the Plan and the Regulations was effectively cured by s76J and the passage of time and 3 that the Regulations were integral part of the Outline Development Plan
Dismissing the Appeal HELD 1
There was compliance with the requirements of section 134 of the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act 1961 and Rule 33 of the Mysore Planning Authority Rules 1965
1075G 2
At every stage the public were informed by notices published in the Official Gazette that the Outline Develop ment Plan was available for inspection at the office of the Planning Authority
1078H 3
The Authorities justifiably always treated the Plan as including the Regulations and what was kept for inspec tion was the Plan alongwith the Regulations
1079A B 4i Where a law whether Parliamentary or subordinate demands compliance those that are governed must be notified directly and reliably of the law and all changes and addi tions made to it by various processes
Whether law is viewed from the standpoint of the 1058 conscientious good man  seeking to abide by law or from the standpoint of Justice Holmes s unconscentious bad man  seeking to avoid the law law must be known that is to say it must be so made that it can be known
1074C E 4ii Delegated or subordinate Legislation is all pervasive and there is hardly any field of activity where governance by delegated or subordinate legislative powers is not as important if not more important than governance by Parliamentary legislation
But unlike Parliamentary Legisla tion which is publicly made delegated or subordinate Legis lation is often made unobtrusively in the chambers of a Minister a Secretary to the Government or other official dignitary
It is therefore necessary that subordinate Legislation in order to take effect must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner whether such publica tion or promulgation is prescribed by the parent statute or not
1074E F 4iii Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or promulgation that mode must be followed
Where the parent statute is silent but the subordinate Legislation itself prescribes the manner of publication such a mode of publication may be sufficient if reasonable
If the subordinate Legislation does not prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate Legislation prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode of publication it will take effect only when it is published from the customarily recognised official channel namely the Official Gazette or some other reasonable mode of publication
There may be subordinate Legislation which is concerned with a few individuals or is confined to small local areas
In such cases publication or promulgation by other means may be sufficient
1074F H 1075A 4iv In the present case s134 has prescribed the mode of publication of Outline Development Plan and the Regulations
It requires the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations to be published in the prescribed manner and the Plan and particulars to be permanently displayed in the office of the Director and the Planning Authority and a copy to be kept available for the inspection of the public at the office of the Planning Authority
The particulars referred to presumably are the particulars mentioned in section 122 of the Act consisting of various reports including the Regula tions The prescribed manner  is what is prescribed by Rule 33 that is publication in the Official Gazette
1075A C 4v Under s91 and 92 also the Outline Development Plan is 1059 required to be published in the prescribed manner 
The prescribed manner for the purposes of sub s1 and 2 of s9 is that prescribed by Rule 32
Rule 32 prescribes making a copy of the Plan available for inspection publishing a notice in Form No II in the Official Gazette and in one or more newspapers and displaying a notice in Form No11 at the office of the Planning Authority and at other specified places
1075C E 4vi Rule 33 speaks of publication of approved Outline Development Plan and Regulations in the Official Gazette suggestive of a requirement that the Outline Development Plan and Regulations should bodily be incorporated in the Official Gazette
But if the entire scheme of the Act and the rule is considered as an integral whole it becomes obvious that what section 134 contemplates besides permanently displaying the Plan and the particulars in the offices of Director and Planning Authority and keeping available a copy for the inspection of the public at the office of Planning Authority is apublic notice to the general public that the Plan and Regulations are permanently displayed and are available for inspection by the public
Such public notice is required to be given by a publication in the Official Gazette
This is how it was understood by the authority and everyone else concerned and this is how it was done in the present case
This appears to be a reasonable and a rational interpretation of s134 and Rule 33 in the setting and the scheme
1075D H 4vii Section 131 requires the provisional Outline Development Plan and particulars to be published by notifi cation in the Official Gazette with a view to invite com ments from the public
What was published in the present case under s131 was also a notice in Form No II and not the whole of the Plan and particulars
Such publication evoked considerable public response
As many as 600 repre sentations from individuals and Institutions were received
Therefore everyone concerned ie the Government the Director the Planning Authority and the public individual and institution alike thought that publication of a notice in the Gazette inviting the attention of the public to the display and availability for inspection of the Plan and particulars was all that was contemplated by the provisions providing for publication
There is no reason or justifica tion to adopt an interpretation which departs from common understanding of the Act and the Rules
1075H 1076A C Shalagram Jhajharia vs National Co Ltd  Ors  Firestone Tyre  Rubber Co vs Syn thetics  Chemicals Ltd  Ors Municipal Board Pushkar vs State Transport Authority Rajasthan  Ors 1963 Suppl
2 1060 SCR 373 and Joint Chief Controller of Imports  Exports Madras vs Ms Aminchand Mutha etc
   distinguished
The effect of the non performance of a duty imposed by a statute in the manner prescribed by the statute is not discovered by a simple answer to the question whether the statute is mandatory or directory
These are not simple chemical reactions
The question whether a statutory re quirement is mandatory or directory cannot itself be an swered easily
Many considerations must prevail and the object and the context are the most important
1077A B Liverpool Borough vs Turner   referred to
6i The High Court was of the view that such defect as there was in regard to publication of the Plan was cured by s76J the Omnibus Curative clause called by this Court as the Ganga clause
Provisions similar to s76J are found in several modern Acts and their object is to put beyond chal lenge defects of constitution of statutory bodies and de fects of procedure which have not led to any substantial prejudice
A defective publication which has otherwise served its purpose is not sufficient to render i1legal what is published and that such defect is cured by Section 76 J 1077B D Bangalore Woollen Cotton  Silk Mills Co Ltd Banga lore vs Corporation of the City of Bangalore and Municipal Board Sitapur vs Prayag Narain Saigal  Firms Moosaram Bhagwandas   followed
6ii In the present case there certainly was an effort to bring the Plan and Regulations to the notice of the public by giving notice of the Plan in the Official Gazette
Non publication of the Plan in the Official Gazette was therefore a curable defect capable of being cured by s76J 1077H 1078A B 7
Failure of the appellants to plead want of publica tion or want of knowledge assumes importance
In the answer to the Writ Petitions the appellants took up the substan tial plea that they had complied with the requirements of the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations but not that they had no knowledge of any such requirement
It can safely be said that the defect or irregularity did not effect the merits of the case
1078B 8
The Outline Development Plan and the Regulations are not 1061 distinct from each other
The Regulations are born out of the Plan and the Plan thrives on the Regulations
The Plan is the basis for the Regulations and the Regulations are what make the plan effective
Without the Regulations the Plan virtually becomes a dead letter
The reference in the four clauses of s13 where the word Plan  or the Outline Development Plan  is used is to the core plan without the particulars and the Regulations and not the whole of the Outline Development Plan which must include the Regulations
What the different phraseology is meant to convey is to emphasise tile different parts of the Plan which have to be forwarded to the Government considered by the Government made available for inspection by the public as the case may be and to the extent necessary
Merely because the words and Regulations are added to the word Plan  the Regula tions are not to be treated as not constituting part of the Plan even as when a building is sold along with the fix tures it does not mean that the fixtures are not treated as part of the building
1078D G 9
Notwithstanding the Regulations some building li cences were granted in contravention of the Regulations but that only exposes the deplorable laxity of the concerned authorities and emphasises the need for greater public vigilance
The present Writ Petitions are forerunners of such vigilance
1079C D