Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, claiming ownership of a plot in Tardeo, Mumbai, challenged a decision of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai contained in a letter dated 5 May 2012, which called upon them to resubmit a development proposal in accordance with a State Government notification dated 19 March 2012. The petitioners sought an order directing the Municipal Corporation to revalidate a letter of intent for construction of a multi-storied parking lot and to scrutinize and sanction plans without reference to the proposed modification of Development Control Regulations. The background is that on 28 October 2008, the Municipal Corporation brought into effect DCR 33(24), which allowed construction of multi-storied parking lots with incentive FSI without height restrictions. The petitioners submitted a proposal on 14 January 2009, which received in-principle approval from the Government on 20 May 2010, and a letter of intent was issued on 19 October 2010 for 1024 public parking spaces. Subsequently, the Municipal Commissioner issued an administrative circular on 22 June 2011 imposing a height cap. The State Government then issued a notification on 19 March 2012 modifying DCR 33(24) to impose height restrictions. The Municipal Corporation by letter dated 5 May 2012 asked the petitioners to resubmit their proposal in accordance with the modified regulation. The petitioners argued that they had a legitimate expectation that their proposal would be processed under the unamended regulation and that the administrative circular was invalid. The court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply to legislative or quasi-legislative functions. The State Government has power under Section 37 of the MRTP Act, 1966 to modify regulations. The petitioners had no vested right in the unamended regulation, and the modification applies to pending proposals. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the notification and the letter.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation - Applicability to Legislative Functions - The doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply to legislative or quasi-legislative functions of the State. The petitioners cannot claim that their proposal must be processed under the unamended DCR 33(24) based on legitimate expectation, as the State has the power to modify regulations. (Paras 8-10) B) Town Planning - Development Control Regulations - Modification of Regulations - Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - The State Government has the power to modify Development Control Regulations under Section 37 of the MRTP Act, 1966. The notification dated 19 March 2012 imposing height restrictions on multi-storied parking lots under DCR 33(24) is a valid exercise of this power. (Paras 5-7) C) Town Planning - Vested Rights - Unamended Regulation - No vested right exists in an unamended regulation. The petitioners had only a letter of intent, which does not confer a right to have the proposal processed under the old regulation. The modification applies to pending proposals. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government's notification dated 19 March 2012 modifying DCR 33(24) to impose height restrictions on multi-storied parking lots is valid and whether the petitioners have a vested right to have their proposal processed under the unamended regulation.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the State Government notification dated 19 March 2012 modifying DCR 33(24) and the Municipal Corporation's letter dated 5 May 2012.
Law Points
- Doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply to legislative or quasi-legislative functions
- Power of State Government to modify Development Control Regulations under Section 37 of MRTP Act
- 1966
- No vested right in unamended regulation
- Administrative circular cannot override statutory regulation
