Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Sections 2(7), 2(9), 2(9-4), 2(13A), 2(27), 14, 21, 22, 37, 38, 43, 45 and 159-Maharashtra Development Control Regulations, 1991-Regulations 2(28), 2(48), 3, 9. 21, 32, 34, 51, 56-58:

Closure of Cotton Textile Mills in Bombay due to continued strike by workers-Lands of such mills-Development of Amendment of Development Regulation 58-Government Notification clarifying scope thereof-Validity of Held, not ultra vires Section 37 of the 1966 Act-Nor violative of the Constitution Both Regulation 58 and the clarificatory Notification not contrary to principles governing environmental aspects including principles of sustainable and planned development vis-a-vis Article 21 of the Constitution-Sick cotton mills taken over by NTC-Subsequently NTC itself becoming sick-In terms of Rehabilitation Scheme framed by BIFR, NTC selling some of the mills Validity of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985-Sections 3(e), 15, 32-Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14, 21 and 484.

Maharashtra Development Control Regulations, 1991:

Regulation 58-Judicial Review of the Regulations-Permissibility of Held, judicial review permissible against legislative policy-Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226.

Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 226-Writ petition-Filing of Laches and delay-Held, writ petition not to be dismissed only on ground of delay.

PIL-Scope of Explained. 

Interpretation of Statutes:

Interpretation of Act and Regulations made thereunder-Doctrine of contemporaneous exposition-Discussed-Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and Development Control Regulations made thereunder.

Doctrines:

Doctrine of contemporaneous exposition-Applicability of Discussed.

The question involved in these appeals is whether any synthesis between environmental aspects and building regulation vis-a-vis the scheme floated by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) in terms of the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) herein is possible.

On behalf of the Appellants and supporting respondents, it was contended that Development Control Regulation 58 of 1991 (DCR 58), as amended in 2001, would be applicable not only to a sick mill but also to a closed mill being unviable which had opted for revival/ modernization/ shifting, the original DCR 58 being not invalid, the mere grant of additional benefits would not make it ultra vires; that the State could not be said to have ignored various conflicting objectives while carrying out the amendment in DCR 58; that the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction of judicial review, could not have interfered with a policy decision of the State; that the High Court committed a manifest error in holding that the amended version of DCR 58 vis-a-vis the term 'open space' would have the same meaning as was contemplated under DCR 58 of 1991; that the High Court failed to appreciate that reading down of DCR.58 was impermissible in law; that the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the past experience of the State necessitating amendment of DCR; that the High Court failed to take note of the fact that the committees appointed by the State also made recommendations that the mill owners would be allowed to develop their lands; that two different interpretations of DCR 58 having been found by the High Court to be possible, it could not have arrived at a conclusion that clarificatory notification dated 28.03.2003 amounted to an amendment of the Regulation and, thus, void; that the impugned judgment is wholly unsustainable as several irrelevant factors, e.g. deluge in the city of Bombay in 2005, were taken into consideration for the purpose of interpretation of DCR 58; that the findings of the High Court would lead to a radical discrimination between cotton textile mills and other industries which being not based on any rational criteria renders it unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; that the High Court failed to take into consideration the fact that equity was in favour of the appellants as they having already demolished the building as having created third party interests, should not have been asked to go back to the same position as was obtaining in the year 1991; that if the impugned judgment is upheld, several provisions of DCR 58, like clause (6) thereof would become otiose and redundant and, thus, interpretation of the High Court in respect of DCR 58 is unsustainable; that no foundational fact having been laid in the writ petition to show as to how the clarification amounts to amendment of DCR 58, the High Court committed a manifest error in arriving at a finding that the said Regulations are ultra vires Section 37 of the Act and/or Article 21 of the Constitution of India; that the Respondent-writ petitioners were guilty of serious delay and laches in filing the writ petition; that the High Court in granting relief in favour of the writ petitioners failed to take into consideration relevant factors and based its decision on irrelevant factors and, thus, misdirected itself in law; that the judgment in Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Ors. [2005] 5 SCC 61 being final and binding on the parties, the High Court committed a serious illegality in interfering therewith; and that BIFR scheme had wrongly been taken recourse to for the purpose of construction of the Regulation.

On behalf of Respondents 1 and 2, it was contended that DCR broadly lays down a scheme of land uses and zoning, Clause 58 thereof as amended in 2001 should be read in conformity with the provisions of the MRTP Act; that the expression 'open land' as contained in DCR 58 must be interpreted in such a manner as to enable the concerned authorities to sanction a building plan in terms of the extant regulations; that on a plain construction of DCR 58 of 2001, it has rightly been held by the High Court that the intention of the State evidently was to give only double FSI and not to diminish the stake of MCGM and MHADA in the mill land; that interpretation of DCR 58 by the State has defeated the purport and object of the Act; that for the purpose of upholding the constitutionality of DCR 58, the same was required to be read down, failing which it is rendered unconstitutional; that the effect and purpose of DCR 58 as clarified by the state only having come to the notice of the writ petitioners in 2005 and as the writ petition was filed by them immediately thereafter, the same was not liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on their part; that in view of the subsequent events, this Court may lay down the principles for the purpose of moulding the reliefs and remit the matter to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh; that MHADA and the MCGM having taken different stands before the High Court, they should not be permitted to support the State; and that all applications for grant of permission for development/ redevelopment were required to be considered having regard to the nature of the land as would be existing after demolition of the existing structures.

Allowing the appeals, the Court.