ASN 1 WP-1752.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1752 OF 2011 Shri.Chintaman R. Gharat. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.M.Sabrad for the Petitioner. Mr.S.B.Shetye for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Mr.S.N.Patil, AGP. For Respondent-State. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND GIRISH S. GODBOLE, J. Wednesday, 4 th May, 2011 PC: By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 18th October, 2010 issued by 4th respondent namely President of Uran Municipal Council thereby rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner. 2 Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been given any hearing before rejecting the said objection. It is the further case of the petitioner that an existing land use map has been prepared first and thereafter without publishing the draft development plan the objection of the petitioner has been rejected. During the course of hearing, Mr. Sabrad, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the letter dated 30th April, 2011 written to one Mr. Parmanand Balkrishana Kargutkar by the Chief Officer of Uran Municipal Council indicating that Assistant Director of Town Planning, Alibag, District ASN 2 WP-1752.sxw Raigad has prepared land use map of Uran and the same has been submitted to the Municipal Council by letter dated 30th June, 2010. According to Mr. Sabrad, such a procedure is not contemplated. According to Mr. Sabrad, after publication of the notification under Section 23 alone such an exercise could have been carried out. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Assistant Director of Town Planning on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In the said affidavit, it has been stated in Paragraph-4 that in so far as Uran Municipal Council is concerned the present exercise is being undertaken under Section 38 read with 22 to 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The said affidavit further indicates that as far as Uran Municipal Council is concerned, a development plan has already been approved by Notification dated 31st December, 1988 and the plan has come into force with effect from 1st April, 1989. The said affidavit further states that an existing land use map showing the boundary of the area of proposed revised development plan of respondent No.5 was prepared by considering the boundary of respondent No. 5 as per Government Gazette dated 21st March, 1986. On behalf of respondent No.5 Uran Municipal Council, an affidavit in reply has been filed by Junior Engineer of the Uran Municipal Council and the said affidavit also records that the original development plan has come into effect from 1st April, 1989 and that on 8th October, 2008 a resolution was passed by the General Body of Uran Municipal Council wherein it was resolved to revise the development plan. The said affidavit specifically states in paragraph 4 that the provision of personal hearing is contemplated under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and ASN 3 WP-1752.sxw the Planning Authority is bound to give hearing to the petitioner while deciding the suggestions and objections under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. The aforesaid facts clearly disclose that in so far as Uran Municipal Council is concerned, a development plan has already been sanctioned and the same is in force since 1989. The public notice which has been published by Uran Municipal Council in Government Gazette dated 7th July, 2010 is a notice issued under Section 38 read with Section 23(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 thereby inviting from the public their objections and suggestions. The petitioner has submitted his objection on 9th September, 2010 and by communication dated 18th October, 2010 which is signed by the President of Uran Municipal Council, the said objection was turned down. A perusal of the impugned communication however indicates that the same clearly mentions that the provisions of Section 26 as also procedure for appointing Town Planning Officer would be followed. From a perusal of the provisions of Section 38 of the Act and considering the scheme of Sections 22 to 31, it would be clear that the present petition is really pre mature. The petitioner has no doubt submitted his objection in response to the notice under Section 23 of the Act. However, the further procedure for appointing Town Planning Officer under Section 24, preparation and publication of revised draft development plan under Section 26 and submitting and considering the objections under Section 28 is yet to take place and as stated by the respondents the same would be followed. The contention of the petitioner that his objection could not have been rejected without giving him an opportunity of personal hearing cannot be ASN 4 WP-1752.sxw accepted in as much as such a personal hearing is contemplated at a later stage to be given by the Planning Committee under Section 28(3) of the said Act. In so far as communication which is challenged in the petition is concerned the same is obviously not a communication or an order as contemplated by Section 28 of the Act. In view of this, the present petition, according to us, is premature. However, we wish to clarify that, in so far as Planning Committee is concerned, the objection of the petitioner would be considered by the Planning Committee at an appropriate stage after following the procedure under Section 28(3) of the Maharashtra and Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and only thereafter appropriate further action in respect of the plan will be taken. 3 It is further clarified that the petitioner would be at liberty to file additional objection after publication of the revised draft development plan as contemplated by Section 28 (1) of the said Act and such objection would be considered by the Planning Committee along with the objection already filed which would be forwarded by the Planning Authority i. e. President of respondent No.5- Uran Municipal Council. 4. With the above clarification, the writ petition is disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE GIRISH S. GODBOLE, J.