Case Note & Summary
These writ petitions and a public interest litigation arose from prolonged disputes over the preparation of a draft development plan for the extended limits of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar), a planning authority under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The lead petitioner, Govind Bajirao Navpute, had earlier successfully challenged a notification dated 04.02.2016 publishing a draft development plan, and the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1981 of 2016 quashed it, holding that the planning authority had failed in its duties and that a situation under Section 21(4A) had arisen. The planning authority's appeal before the Supreme Court led to a statement that the State Government had issued directions under Section 154 for preparing a combined development plan for the original and extended areas; the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2237 of 2020 noted the need for a fresh combined plan. Subsequently, the lead petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 582 of 2022 alleging disobedience of the High Court's earlier order. The contempt petition was disposed of on 03.08.2023 with a proposal accepted by the State Government: the State would appoint an officer under Section 21(4A) and/or Section 162 of the MRTP Act within three weeks, the Development Plan Special Unit would submit its work to that officer, and the officer would publish the draft development plan under Section 26 and carry out the process up to submission to the State Government under Section 30. Pursuant thereto, the State Government by order dated 31.08.2023 appointed respondent No. 6 as an officer under Section 21(4A) to perform duties under Sections 26 to 30. However, on 07.11.2023, the State Government passed another order invoking Section 162(1) of the MRTP Act, thereby confirming the appointment of respondent No. 6 as the officer to complete the combined draft development plan. The petitioners challenged this order, alleging that Section 162(1) was not mentioned in the High Court's contempt order or the order dated 31.08.2023, and that the State Government had realized the mistake and issued the impugned order to confirm an illegal appointment. The core legal issue framed by the High Court was whether the State Government could resort to Section 162 to replace an officer appointed under Section 21(4A), especially since the authority to appoint under Section 21(4A) was vested in the Joint Director of Town Planning. The court noted the procedural history and the allegations, but the provided text does not include the final decision or the court's detailed reasoning on the merits. The court issued Rule in all petitions and made it returnable forthwith, indicating the matter was to be heard further. The final operative part of the judgment is not available in the excerpt.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Town Planning - Appointment of Planning Officer - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Sections 21(4A), 162(1) - The High Court considered whether the State Government could invoke Section 162 to replace or confirm an officer appointed under Section 21(4A), where Section 21(4A) vests appointing authority with the Joint Director of Town Planning. The dispute arose from quashing of a draft development plan notification and subsequent contempt proceedings directing appointment of an officer to complete the development plan process. The court examined the order dated 07.11.2023 passed under Section 162(1) and the allegation that it was issued despite the provision not being mentioned in the contempt order or earlier appointment order (Paras 5-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government, resorting to Section 162 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, can replace an officer appointed under Section 21(4A) in light of the High Court's judgment in Writ Petition No. 1981 of 2016, when under Section 21(4A) the authority to appoint such officer is with the Joint Director of Town Planning.
Law Points
- Section 21(4A) of MRTP Act vests authority to appoint officer with Joint Director of Town Planning
- Section 162 cannot be used to replace such officer without legal basis
- State Government must comply with High Court directions in contempt proceedings
- Combined development plan preparation must follow prescribed procedure under Sections 23-30 MRTP Act
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (04) 15
Writ Petition No. 7515 of 2024 along with Writ Petition Nos. 12190 of 2023, 15392 of 2023, 15422 of 2023 and Public Interest Litigation No. 4 of 2024
Mangesh S. Patil, Prafulla S. Khubalkar
Shri. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate; Shri. Saurabh Avhad; Shri. S.R. Sapkal; Shri. S.B. Deshpande, Senior Advocate; Shri. Chetan Choudhari; Shri. A.B. Girase; Ms. S.S. Joshi; Shri. V.D. Salunke; Shri. S.S. Tope; Shri. Akash E. Madne; Shri. R.D. Dhorde, Senior Advocate; Shri. P.S. Dighe; Shri. Shashikant T. Cahlikwar; Shri. Ajeet B. Kale; Shri. Mohd. Aseem Mohd. Abdul Kaleem; Shri. Anand Bhandari
Shri. Govind Bajirao Navpute (WP No. 7515 of 2024); Shri. Vinod S/o Gangabishan Agrawal (WP No. 12190 of 2023); Syed Sarwat Begum W/o Arif Hussaini (WP No. 15392 of 2023); Smt. Hazirabee W/o Ahmed Khan (WP No. 15422 of 2023); Sarda Narayan Purushottam (PIL No. 4 of 2024)
The State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department; Director Town Planning; Joint Director Town Planning, Aurangabad; Deputy Director Town Planning; Aurangabad Municipal Corporation; Mohd. Raza Khan; Shrikant Marutirao Deshmukh
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions and public interest litigation challenging the State Government's appointment of an officer under Section 162(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 to prepare a combined draft development plan for Aurangabad city.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to object to and set aside the order dated 31.08.2023 appointing respondent No. 6 under Section 21(4A) and the subsequent order dated 07.11.2023 passed under Section 162(1) confirming that appointment.
Filing Reason
The State Government issued the order dated 07.11.2023 under Section 162(1) to confirm the appointment of an officer, allegedly contrary to the High Court's contempt order and without proper authority under Section 21(4A).
Previous Decisions
High Court in Writ Petition No. 1981 of 2016 quashed notification dated 04.02.2016; Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2237 of 2020 noted directions for combined development plan; High Court in Contempt Petition No. 582 of 2022 disposed on 03.08.2023 with proposal for appointment under Section 21(4A) and/or 162 and directed completion of process.
Issues
Whether the State Government, resorting to Section 162 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, can replace an officer appointed under Section 21(4A) in light of the High Court's judgment in Writ Petition No. 1981 of 2016, when under Section 21(4A) the authority to appoint such officer is with the Joint Director of Town Planning.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner alleged that Section 162(1) was not referred to in the High Court's contempt order dated 03.08.2023 or in the order dated 31.08.2023 appointing respondent No. 6 under Section 21(4A), and that the impugned order dated 07.11.2023 was issued to confirm an illegal appointment.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether the State Government, resorting to Section 162 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, can replace an officer appointed under Section 21(4A) in light of judgment of the High Court in writ petition No. 1981 of 2016 with connected writ petitions, when under Section 21(4A), the authority to appoint such officer is with the Joint Director of Town Planning ?
In this case, it is to be noted that proceedings were initiated in the year 2013 for revising the draft development plan and for one reason or the other, the proceedings remained at the stage of preparation of draft development plan. In view of the directions of the High Court, the said plan is yet to be prepared and is to be submitted to the Government for sanction.
The allegations are that though there was no reference to the powers of the State Government under Section 162(1) in the order dated 03.08.2023 passed in the contempt proceedings and it was not even referred to in the order dated 31.08.2023 appointing respondent No. 6, and perhaps realizing the mistake/illegality the impugned order dated 07.11.2023 was issued by the State Government invoking that provision thereby confirming appointment of respondent No. 6 who was then the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Greater Mumbai, as an officer to complete the proceedings for composing the draft development plan by revising plan of the original limit plus
Procedural History
The planning authority declared intention to prepare draft development plan under Section 23(1) on 26.05.2010; draft published on 03.02.2016. Govind Bajirao Navpute filed Writ Petition No. 1981 of 2016; High Court quashed notification dated 04.02.2016. Planning authority challenged before Supreme Court; statement made regarding directions under Section 154 for combined plan. Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2237 of 2020 noted fresh combined plan to be prepared. Contempt Petition No. 582 of 2022 filed; disposed on 03.08.2023 with proposal for State to appoint officer under Section 21(4A) and/or Section 162 within three weeks, and Special Unit to submit work to appointed officer. State Government by order dated 31.08.2023 appointed respondent No. 6 under Section 21(4A). On 07.11.2023 State Government passed order under Section 162(1) appointing respondent No. 6 for combined draft development plan. Petitioners filed writ petitions and PIL challenging these orders.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Section 21(4A), Section 154, Section 162, Section 162(1), Section 23(1), Section 25, Section 26, Section 30
