:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 620 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 620 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 620 OF 2008 M/s Cine Trade Exhibitors ..Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra & 7 Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Vivek Kantawala i/b Vivek Kantawala & Co. for the petitioners Mr. D.A. Nalawade, GP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mrs. Archana Joshi for respondent No.4 CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : SRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR AND SRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR AND SRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR AND SRI SRI SRI A.A. SAYED, JJ. A.A. SAYED, JJ. A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 11TH AUGUST, 2008 : 11TH AUGUST, 2008 : 11TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. 1. The impugned order is sought to be challenged primarily on the ground that the respondent did not follow the basis principles of natural justice in relation to the opportunity to be heard personally before passing the order, in spite of specific direction to that effect in the order dated 10th August, 2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1480/2007. It is further submitted that the apart from what is stated in the impugned order, no justifiable reason has been disclosed in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent for :2: rejection of the request of the petitioner for change for user of the land. 2. The order dated 10th August, 2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1480/2007 reads thus:- " It is stated that the application stated to have been filed by the petitioner may or may not be traceable on the records of the respondents. However, the respondents would treat the petition along with the annexures thereto as the application/representation of the petitioner and consider the request of the petitioner for constructing multiplex theatre and shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law within six weeks from today. In view of the statement made by the respondents, nothing survives in this writ petition and is disposed of as such. The respondents will abide by the statement." Plain reading of the said order nowhere discloses any direction to the respondents to grant personal hearing to the petitioner in relation to the application for change of user of the land. It is settled law that the question of granting personal hearing can arise only in case of specific provision in that regard is found in the statute which is dealing with the matter or there is specific :3: direction to the effect by the Court in writ jurisdiction or otherwise. No statutory provision has been brought to our notice which reveals that it was compulsory for the respondents to grant personal hearing to the petitioner while dealing with the application filed by the petitioner. Order dated 10th August, 2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1480/2007 also nowhere issued any such direction to the respondents. Hence merely because the petitioner was not personally heard in the matter before passing the impugned order that will not amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Perusal of the order discloses that the contention which were sought to be raised by the petitioner have been considered by the concerned authority while passing the impugned order. 3. As regards the contentions apart from the reasons disclosed in the impugned order no further explanation has been given by the respondents in their affidavit for rejection of the prayer for change of user, it is settled law that the authorities are not expected to substitute the order by way of affidavit. The orders should stand on the :4: basis of whatever has been stated in the order itself and it cannot be substituted or supplemented by additional grounds in the form of affidavit. The law in that regard being well settled, mere failure on the part of the respondents to place on record the additional reasons for rejection of the application other than those specified in the impugned order cannot be ground for interference in the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction. As no other ground is canvassed to assail the impugned order, there is no case for interference in the impugned order. The petition therefore is liable to be dismissed. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the decision in the matter of Bhikhubhai Bhikhubhai Bhikhubhai Vithalbhai Patel and others V State of Vithalbhai Patel and others V State of Vithalbhai Patel and others V State of Gujrat Gujrat Gujrat and another and another and another, reported in Latest Judgments page 1 and drawn our attention particularly to para 33 and 37. They reads as follows: "33.- The Court is entitled to examine whether there has been any material available with the State Government and the reasons recorded, if any, in the formation of opinion and whether they have any rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the :5: opinion. The Court is entitled particularly, in the event, when the formation of the opinion is challenged to determine whether the formation of opinion is arbitrary, capricious or whimsical. It is always open to the court to examine the question whether reasons for formation of opinion have rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of such opinion and are not extraneous to the purposes of the statute. "37.-On consideration of the facts and the material available on record, it is established that the State Government took the action proposing to make substantial modifications to the plan without forming of any opinion, which is a condition precedent for the use of power under proviso to Section 17(..)(a)(ii). The power, to restrict the use of land by the owners thereof, is a drastic power. The designation or reservation of the land and its use results in severe abridgment of the right to property. Statutory provisions enabling the State or its authorities to impose restrictions on the right to use one’s own land are required to be construed strictly. The legislature has, it seems to us, prescribed certain conditions to prevent the abuse of power and to ensure just exercise of power, Section 17 and more particularly the provisions to Section 17(1)(a)(ii) prescribes some of the conditions precedent for the exercise of power. The order proposing to make substantial modifications, in breach of any of those conditions, will undoubtedly be void. On a successful showing the order proposing substantial modifications and designation the land of the appellants for educational use under section 12(2) (O) of the Act has been made without the Statement Government applying its mind to the aspect of necessity or without forming an honest opinion on that aspect, it will, we have no doubt, be void. 5. Apparently in the case before the Apex Court :6: the authorities had ordered change of user without considering the relevant facts and without application of mind and without forming definite opinion based on the materials available before the concerned authorities. In the case in hand bare perusal of the impugned order discloses that the authorities have taken into consideration the various facts including the fact that for number of years the land in question was being used for having Cinema Theatre and that no justifiable ground was disclosed of change of said user. In the circumstances the decision of the Apex Court is of no help to the petitioner to invite our interference in the impugned order. 6. For the reasons stated above therefore, the petition fails and rejected. (R.M.S. (R.M.S. (R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.) KHANDEPARKAR, J.) KHANDEPARKAR, J.) ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)