Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs M/S Pure Industrial Cock & Chem. Ltd. & ...

21. On or about 30.03.1999, the State Government delegated its power under Sections 13 and 47A of the Act in favour of the District Planning Committee and it in exercise of said delegated power by a notification dated 13.11.2000 amended the planning area by adding 115 villages therein which included the said villages Bicholi and Kanadia. By a notification dated 28.06.2002, it, however, further amended the extent of planning area by deleting 62 villages therefrom. Bicholi and Kanadia villages were, however, retained in the said amended notification.

25. Respondents, as noticed hereinbefore, applied for and obtained sanction in terms of the building bye-laws framed by the respective gram panchayats in 1991 for grant of development plans under Section 29(1) on 02.12.2004. The said applications were rejected by the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning in view of the purported publication of the plan under sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the Act. Respondents filed a writ petition against the said order, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the said authority to sanction the site plan which had been submitted. The said writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge by an order dated 17.05.2006. Writ appeals were preferred thereagainst, which have been allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated 06.03.2007.

53. The courts should, therefore, strive to find a balance of the competing interest.

78. Land use, development plan and zonal plan provided for the plan at macro level whereas the town planning scheme is at a micro level and, thus, would be subject to development plan. It is, therefore, difficult to comprehend that broad based macro level planning may not at all be in place when a town planning scheme is prepared.

95. The District Planning Committee, however, issued another notification amending the planning area to 90 villages only and deleting 62 villages from its earlier notification.

97. Whether issuance of notification by the delegatee would automatically extend the jurisdiction of the appellant is the question. Before we consider the legal issues involved, we may notice that the appellant filed an application before the High Court wherein it was stated:

beyond its prescribed operational area."

99. Yet again, the State in exercise of its power under Section 38(1) of the Act notified planning area confirming to the one identified by the District Planning Committee in terms of its notification dated 28.10.2005.

How State understood it :

100. Application of the principle of executive construction would lead to a conclusion that the State and the appellant themselves proceeded on the basis that in terms of the notification issued by the District Planning Committee, the area of operation of the appellant was not extended.

[See also S.B. Bhattacharjee v. S.D. Majumdar & Ors., Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3413 of 2006, disposed of today].

Exercise of delegated power effect of :

106. We may at this juncture notice the effect of the notifications issued by the authority :

108. It is, therefore, difficult for us to accept the submission of Mr. Venugopal and Mr. Gambhir that the notification dated 13.11.2000 subsumes in the notification dated 12.08.1977.

109. For the reasons aforementioned, we do not have any other option but to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court.

110. We may, however, observe that several other contentions, as noticed hereinbefore, have been raised before us but we do not find any necessity to go thereinto.

Should we issue Mandamus ?

[See also Lakshmi Amma v. Devassy [1970 KLT 204]

[See also Kuldeep Singh v. Govt. NCT of Delhi [(2006) 5 SCC 702]

117. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in these appeals which are dismissed accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.