Delegated legislative power under planning law permits sanction with changes, without a further hearing or promissory estoppel challenge.

Section 37(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 empowers the State Government, after necessary inquiry and consultation, to sanction a proposed modification of development control rules with changes and conditions, or to refuse sanction. The provision does not confine the Government to a mere approval role, as the sanction process forms part of delegated legislative activity. The statutory scheme also does not require a further hearing before sanction is granted, and principles of natural justice are not implied where the statute does not so provide. Promissory estoppel cannot be used to defeat a statutory amendment or rule having statutory force. The sanctioned modification was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, on a proper construction of section 37(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the State Government could sanction a proposed modification of the development control rules with changes and conditions of its own; and (ii) whether the absence of a further hearing and the plea of promissory estoppel could invalidate the sanctioned modification.

Issue (i): whether, on a proper construction of section 37(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the State Government could sanction a proposed modification of the development control rules with changes and conditions of its own.

Analysis: Section 37 contemplates a two-stage process. Under sub-section (1), objections and suggestions are invited and affected persons are heard before the Planning Authority submits the proposed modification to the State Government. Under sub-section (2), the State Government is empowered to make such inquiry as it considers necessary and, after consulting the Director of Town Planning, to sanction the modification with or without changes and subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, or to refuse sanction. The power is part of delegated legislative activity, and the statutory language does not confine the Government to a mere rubber-stamping function. Judicial interference is not warranted merely because the Government exercises its statutory discretion to alter the proposal, so long as the action is not shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

Conclusion: the State Government was competent to sanction the modification with changes and conditions under section 37(2); the contrary view was incorrect.

Issue (ii): whether the absence of a further hearing and the plea of promissory estoppel could invalidate the sanctioned modification.

Analysis: The statutory scheme does not require a second round of notice or hearing before the State Government accords sanction under section 37(2). In delegated legislation, natural justice is not to be imported unless the statute itself so provides. Section 37(2) uses the enabling expression that the Government may make such inquiry as it considers necessary, which does not create a corresponding right in any person to insist on being heard. Further, development control rules framed under section 158 have statutory force, and promissory estoppel cannot operate against a statute or statutory rule. The challenge founded on these grounds therefore could not be accepted.

Conclusion: the modification was not invalid for want of a further hearing, and promissory estoppel could not be invoked against the statutory amendment.

Final Conclusion: the sanctioned modification of the development control rules was upheld, the High Court's order was set aside, and the writ petitions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: where the governing statute expressly authorises the State Government to sanction a proposed modification with or without changes and subject to conditions, courts will not read in an additional hearing requirement or use promissory estoppel to defeat a statutory amendment framed as delegated legislation.

---