TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Maharashtra Can Amend Development Control Rules: SC Overturns High Court's Order, Dismisses Writ Petitions.</h1> <h3>Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Versus Promoters & Builders Association & Anr.</h3> The SC determined that the State Government of Maharashtra possesses the delegated legislative authority to amend the Development Control Rules under the ... Development planning of Greater Bombay and Pune - Whether the impugned amendment to the Development Control Rules (DCR) sanctioned by the State Government of Maharashtra is in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (the Act) is the matter for consideration? - Principles of promissory estoppel - HELD THAT:- As we have pointed out, the true interpretation of section 37(2) permits the State government to make necessary modifications or put conditions while granting sanction. In section 37(2), the legislature has not intended to provide for a public hearing before according sanction. The procedure for making such amendment is provided in section 37. Delegated legislation cannot be questioned for violating principles of natural justice in its making except when the statute itself provides for that requirement. Where the legislature has not chosen to provide for any notice or hearing, no one can insist upon it and it is not permissible to read natural justice into such legislative activity. Moreover, a provision for 'such inquiry as it may consider necessary' by a subordinate legislating body is generally an enabling provision to facilitate the subordinate legislating body to obtain relevant information from any source and it is not intended to vest any right in anybody. (Union of India and Anr. v. Cynamide India Ltd and Anr. [1990 (8) TMI 402 - SUPREME COURT], HSSK Niyami and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. [1990 (8) TMI 402 - SUPREME COURT] and Canara Bank v. Debasis Das [2003 (3) TMI 664 - SUPREME COURT]. While exercising legislative functions, unless unreasonableness or arbitrariness is pointed out, it is not open for the Court to interfere. Therefore, the view adopted by the High Court does not appear to be correct. Issues involved:The legality of the amendment to the Development Control Rules (DCR) sanctioned by the State Government of Maharashtra under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.Summary:The Supreme Court considered whether the State Government had the authority to make changes to the modifications submitted by the Planning Authority under section 37 of the Act. The Court analyzed the provisions of section 37(1) and (2) which outline the process for proposing and sanctioning modifications to the Development Plan. It was emphasized that the Government has the discretion to make necessary modifications, impose conditions, or refuse sanction, as long as the proposed changes do not alter the basic character of the development plan. The Court clarified that the legislative power to amend DCR is delegated to the State Government, and the Act does not mandate a public hearing before according sanction.The Court highlighted that the DCR, framed under section 158 of the Act, have statutory force, and there can be no 'promissory estoppel' against a statute. Therefore, the High Court erred in invoking the principle of 'promissory estoppel' to support the Respondents' petition. The Court concluded that unless arbitrariness or unreasonableness is demonstrated, it is not within the Court's purview to interfere with legislative functions. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Respondents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
