Alternative statutory remedy and deemed permission under development law: pending appeal and remand order defeated the writ challenge.

An available statutory appeal, already invoked and pending, weighed against entertaining a parallel writ petition seeking substantially the same relief, making writ jurisdiction inappropriate. The statutory deeming permission under Section 13(3) of the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 did not arise because the original application had been rejected within the prescribed sixty days. After that rejection was quashed, a fresh order passed on judicial direction was not required to comply again with the original sixty-day period, and the deeming fiction did not apply to the remand decision. The challenge to the High Court's view therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition ought to have been entertained when an effective statutory appeal was already available and had in fact been invoked; (ii) Whether the deeming provision under Section 13(3) of the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 operated because the fresh rejection order was passed after expiry of sixty days from the original application.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition ought to have been entertained when an effective statutory appeal was already available and had in fact been invoked.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative statutory remedy is a strong ground against exercise of writ jurisdiction, especially where the party has already availed itself of the appellate remedy provided by the statute and the appeal remained pending. In such a situation, entertaining a parallel writ petition seeking substantially the same relief was not proper.

Conclusion: The writ petition ought not to have been entertained.

Issue (ii): Whether the deeming provision under Section 13(3) of the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 operated because the fresh rejection order was passed after expiry of sixty days from the original application.

Analysis: The statutory fiction of deemed permission arises only when the Authority fails to pass an order within sixty days of receipt of the application. Here, the original application was actually rejected within time. Once that order was quashed and a fresh order was directed to be passed, the statutory period did not restart from the date of the judicial order, and there was no warrant for treating the fresh order as barred by the original sixty-day limit. A consequential order passed after remand or quashing is governed by the judicial direction and must be passed within a reasonable time if no specific time-limit is fixed, but it is not controlled by the original statutory period for the initial decision.

Conclusion: Deemed permission did not arise, and the fresh rejection order was not without jurisdiction on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the High Court's view failed, and the appellant was entitled to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory deeming provision triggered by failure to decide within a prescribed period applies only to the initial decision-making process; if an order is already passed in time and later quashed, a fresh order made pursuant to judicial direction is not required to satisfy the original statutory time-limit anew.

---