Substantial modification power under town planning law requires a reasoned opinion on relevant material; unsupported notifications are ultra vires.

Under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, the State Government's power to publish substantial modifications to a development plan depends on forming an opinion, on relevant material, that such modifications are necessary. That opinion must reflect application of mind and must be disclosed by the order itself; later explanations cannot cure a missing foundation. On the record, no material showed a genuine satisfaction that substantial modifications were required, and the notifications did not disclose the requisite opinion. The notifications were therefore void and ultra vires because the condition precedent for exercise of power under the proviso to Section 17(1)(a)(ii) was not satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Government's preliminary and final notifications designating the lands for educational use under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 were valid and within power, and whether the requisite opinion under the proviso to Section 17(1)(a)(ii) was formed on relevant material.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 17 and 21 confers a wide power on the State Government to sanction or modify a development plan, but the power to publish substantial modifications is conditional. The proviso to Section 17(1)(a)(ii) can be invoked only when the Government forms an opinion, on relevant material, that substantial modifications are necessary. Such opinion is subjective in form but not unfettered in law; it must be founded on existing circumstances and must reflect application of mind to the necessity of the proposed modification. Public orders made in exercise of statutory power must stand or fall on the reasons and material disclosed at the time of the order itself, and cannot be justified by later explanations. On the record, there was no material showing any genuine formation of opinion that substantial modifications were necessary, and the impugned notifications did not disclose such satisfaction.

Conclusion: The notifications were void and ultra vires as the condition precedent for exercise of power under the proviso to Section 17(1)(a)(ii) was not satisfied.

---