Writ Petition No. 2467 of 2014. Case: Yashodhan Bank of India Cooperative Housing Society and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberWrit Petition No. 2467 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Advocate a/w Aniruddha Joshi, P. Naphade i/b Law Focus, Mr. Milind More, AGP, Ms. S.M. Modle, Advcoate and For Respondents: Mr. P.G. Lad, Advocate
JudgesMohit S. Shaha, C.J. & M. S. Sanklecha, J.
IssueMaharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 37(1AA); Constitution of India - Articles 14, 226
Judgement DateFebruary 11, 2015
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

P.C.:

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges:

(a) validity of the notification dated 8 November 2013 issued by the State of Maharashtra under Section 37(1AA) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (the 'MRTP Act'); and

(b) in the alternative, in case the impugned notification is held to be valid, the petitioner by virtue of Clause (2)(e) of the schedule to the impugned notification is exempted/excluded for its operation.

2. So far as the challenge to the notification dated 8 November 2013 is concerned, the same has been negatived in our order dated 5 February 2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 366/2014 (D.B. Reality Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra). The additional grounds of challenge in this petition to the impugned notification dated 8th November 2013 are that

(a) it applies prospectively only to housing scheme or residential project where commencement certificate has not been issued prior to the impugned notification coming into force; and

(b) the impugned notification is vague in not defining the Economically Weaker Sections of the Society. Thus in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of the grant of commencement certificate, prior to the impugned notification being the cutoff point for nonapplication of the impugned notification, the date of issue of IOD (Intimation of Disapproval) would be the appropriate cut off point for not making the impugned notification applicable. The exact stage which is to be taken as the point at which the project is to be taken to have commenced for nonapplication of the impugned notification is best left to be decided by the notification issuing authority. This is so as various considerations go into deciding the same. There has to be some free play in the joint while deciding the cut off stage. In any case it has not been shown to us that the stage of issuing of commencement certificate prior to the notification coming into force being taken as the cut off point for not applying the impugned notification is in any manner perverse and/or arbitrary. Thus we do not find any substance in the above challenge.

4. So far as the impugned notification being vague and arbitrary and thus in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is concerned, the petitioner points out that though the impugned notification directs reservation of plots for economically weaker section of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT