Holding

The publication of the Outline Development Plan and Regulations complied with Section 13(4) and Rule 33, and any defect was cured by Section 76J; the Plan and Regulations are integral, not distinct, and the High Court’s order stands.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether the Outline Development Plan (ODP) and its Zonal Regulations for Bangalore were validly published as required by Section 13(4) of the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and the 1965 Planning Authority Rules. The appellants argued that the ODP and Regulations were not properly published in the Official Gazette, rendering them ineffective, and that the permits for high‑rise buildings should be struck down. The Court held that the notices published in the Gazette complied with the statutory requirement, that the plan and regulations were treated as a single instrument, and that any defect in publication was cured by the curative provision of Section 76J. Consequently, the High Court’s order directing modification of the building licences was upheld. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

The adequacy of publication of the Outline Development Plan and Regulations under Section 13(4) and Rule 33.
Whether failure to publish the Regulations separately renders them ineffective.
Whether Section 76J of the Act cures defects in publication of subordinate legislation.
Whether the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations are distinct instruments or integral parts of the same plan.
Whether the statutory requirement of publication is mandatory or directory.
Whether an offer of inspection can substitute for statutory publication.
Whether building permits issued in contravention of the Regulations are invalid.

Legislation cited

City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945
Mysore Planning Authority Rules, 1965s. Rule 32, s. Rule 33
Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961s. 13, s. 76J, s. 9

Subjects

planning lawoutline development planpublication requirementsubordinate legislationvalidation clauseSection 76Jmandatory vs directorybuilding regulationshigh‑rise constructionpublic interest litigationKarnataka Town and Country Planning Actadministrative law

Judgment

B.K. SRINIVASAN & ANOTHER ETC. ETC.
A v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

JANUARY 19, 1987

B [0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND G. L. OZA, JJ.]

Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961-ss. 9.12, 13, 76! 't
and 8/A(a)-Planning Authority Rules, 1965-Rules 32 and 33 and
Form II-Publication of a notice in Official Gazette-Inviting attention
of the Public to the display and availability for inspection of the Plan
.C and the Regulations-Whether suffi~ient compliance with s.13(4) and
Rule .53-Plan and Regulations-Whether to be bodily incorporated in
f
the Gazette-Defect in Publication, if any,-Whether curable by
s. 761-Mention of Plan and non-mention of the Regulations in the i
notice-Whether amounts to non-publication of Regu/ations-s.13-
0utline Development Plan and Regulations-Whether distinct.
D
Administrative Law-Subordinate legislation-Nolification-
Necessity of-How ·and when becomes effective-Publi~ation of
Notification-Mode of-Notification-Defect in publication--lf notifi-
cation otherwise served its purpose-Whether mere procedural irregu-
larity in publication would render the notification illegal-Subordinate
E legislation-To be pubfished or promulgated in suitable manner.

Statutory Law-Effect of non-compliance with statutory re-
quirement-Whether depends upon the mandatory or directory nature
of the provision.

Interpretation of Statutes-Interpretation which departs from
-
F
common understanding of statute should be avoided.

In 1961 the Bangalore Metropolitan Board was formed. The
Board prepared an Outline Development Plan (O.D.P.). In February,
1963, the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 came into
G force with effect from January 15, 1965. Section 81-A(a) of the Act
provides that the Outline Development Plan for the Bangalore Metro-
politan Area prepared by the Bangalore Metropolitan Planning Board
shall be deemed to be the Outline Development Plan of the Planning
Area comprising the City of Bangalore, prepared under the Act, by the
Planning Authority of the Area. Section 81-A(a) further provides that
H the said plan alongwith the particulars specified in clauses (ii), (iii), (iv)

1054
B.K. SRINIVASAN v. STATE OF KAR. 1055

and (v) of s.12(2) shall be published and submitted to the State Govern·
ment for provisional approval. Section 81-A(b) provides that on receipt A
of the plan and the particulars, the Stale Government shall after
making such modifications as it deems fit, return the plan and the
particulars to the Planning Authority for taking further action in
accordance with the provisions of s.13. Section 13 deals with approval
of the Outline Development Plan. Section 76J provides for "validation a
of acts and proceedings". Rule 32 of the. Mysore Planning Authority
Rules, 1965 provides for "publication of Outline Development Plan
under sub.s.(l) and sub-s.(2) of s.9." It prescribes that the publication
shall be made by making a copy of the Plan available for inspection and
displaying a notice in Form II, (a) at the office of the Planning Autho·
rity and (b) at such other places as may be specified by the Planning\ C
Authority. The Planning Authority is also required to publish a
notice in Form II in the Official Gazette and in one or more newspapers.
The Publication under s.9(2) is also required to be made in the same
manner. Rule 33 provides for 'Publication of Outline Development Plan
and Regulations under s.13(4), and stipulates that the Outline Development
Plan and the Regulations as approved by the State Government under p
sub-s.(3) of s.13 shal! be published in the Official Gazette.

A· 'Notice of publication of Outline Development Plan' was
published in the Mysore Gazette dated 21.12.1967 in Form II. After the
State Government provisionally approved the Plan, 'Notice of publica·
tion of Outline Development Plan' was published in the Mysore Gazette E
dated 10.10.1968 again in Form II. 111 response to the invitation to file
objections, as many as 600 representations and objections were received
from individuals, institutions, associations, Chambers of Commerce
etc. The Outline Development Plan was finally approved by the Govern·
men! and a notification to that effect was published in the Mysore
Gazette dated 13.7.72. F

The Bangalore Improvement Trust Board desired to develop Raj
Mahal Vilas Extension under the provisions of the City of Bangalore
Improvement Act, 1945. Land was acquired and plots were alloted to
several people. A lay out plan was prepared and conditions were
imposed for construction of houses on the sites. One of the conditions of G
allotment was that the sites were not to be sub-divided and not more than
one dwelling house was to be constructed on each of the sites. Appa·
rently multistoreyed, high-rise buildings were not within the contem-
plation of either the Improvement Trust Board or the allotees at the
time of allotment. However, High buildings came up. A number of
residents of the locality submitted a mermorandum to the Governor and H
i
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

A the Chief Minister to take an appropriate action to prevent construction A
of high-rise buildings in residential area of Raj Mahal Vilas Extention.
Since there was no response some persons resorted to 'Public Interest Liti-
gation, by filing writ petitions alleging that the Outline Development Plan
for Bangalore which had been published in the prescribed manner had
been ignored by the authorities in granting permission to the appeal-
B lants to construct the high-rise buildings and that permits had been t
granted to construct eight-floor residential buildings going to a height of
80 feet whereas under the regulations the maximum permissible height
of a building was only 55 feet. Writs were sought to quash the permits
granted for construction, to restrain the appellants from constructing j
the eight-floor buildings, to direct them to demolish the structures ·
already put up and to require the ~angalore Urban Area Commission to
c recommend to the State Government against the construction of high-
rise buildings in any of the existing extensions of Banglore. ;

The High Court allowed the petitions and declared the licences
granted for constructions illegal and directed the Commissioner, Cor-
D poration of the City of Bangalore to modify the lk-ences os as to bring
them in confirmity with the Outline Development Plan and the Zonal
Regulations appended thereto promulgated under s.!3(4) of the
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and take all consequential
actions in accordance with law.

E In the appeal to this Court, on behalf of the appellants it was
contended: ( !) that publication of the Outline Development Plan and
the Regulations in the prescribed manner, that is, in the Official
Gazette was mandatory under s.13(4) and that failure to so publish the
Outline Development Plan and the Regulations rendered them ineffec-.
live. The licences already granted to the appellants could not be cancel-
F led or directed to be modified so as to be in accord with the Outline
Development Plan and the Regulations; (2) that the Regulations were
distinct from the Outline Development Plan and that in the case of the
Regulations, there was no attempt whatever at publication; (3) that the
High Court was in error in holding that s.76 J cured whatever defect
there was in regard to the publication of the Plan and the Regulations
G and that the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations became
effective as soon as they were approved by the Government under
s. 13(3) of the Act irrespective of the date of publication under s.13(4);
(4) that offer of inspection cannot be a substitute for publication; (5)
that s.13(1) nsed the words "the Plan and the particulars", s.13(2) used
the words "the Plan and the the Regulations". s.13(3) used the words
H "the Plan and the Regulations" and s.13(4) used the words "the Out-
B.K. SRINIVASAN v. STATE OF KAR. 1057

A line Development Plan and the Regulations" as well as the words "the A
Plan and the Regulations" and this signified that the particulars and
the Regulations are not to be treated as part of the plan but as creations
distinct from the Plan. In the notice published on 27 .6.1972, the Plan-
ning Authority mentioned that the Plan was available for inspection at
the office of the planning· authority but made no reference to the Rego-
.. lations and, therefore, it must be considered that the Regulations were
not made available for inspection and so never published; and (6) that
neither the Municipal Corporation nor any other Civic Authority ap-
peared to be aware of the Outline Development Plan and the Regula-
\ lions as was evident from the circumstances that in the years that pas-
. ., sed since the approval of the Plan by the Government and before the
writ petitions were filed, as many as 57 buildings licences had admit-
,. tedly been issued in contravention of the Regulations. C

On behalf of the respondents it was contended: (I) that there was
sufficient publication of the Plan and the Regulations, that the Plan and
Regulations were always kept available for inspection at the ofl':ice of
the concerned authorities and that it was not the case of the appellants o
originally that there was no publication and that they had no knowledge
of the Plan and the Regulations: (2) that the defect in the publication of
the Plan and the Regulations was effectively cured by s. 76J and the
passage of time; and (3) that the Regulations were integral part of the
+. Outline Development Plan.
E
Dismissing the Appeal,

HELD !. There was compliance with the requirements ofs.13(4)
of the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and Rule 33 of the
Mysore Planning Authority Rules, 1965. [1075G]
F
2. At every stage the public were informed by notices published
in the Official Gazette that the Outline Development Plan was available
for inspection at the office of the Planning Authority. [1078H]

3. The Authorities justifiabl' always treated the Plan as including
the Regulations and what was kept for inspection was the Plan along- G
with the Regulations. [1079A-B]

4.(i) Where a law, whether Parliamentary or subordinate,
demands compliance, those that are governed must be notified directly
and reliably of the law and all changes and additions made to it by
various processes. Whether law is viewed from the standpoint of the H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

A 'conscientious good man' seeking to abide by law or from the stand- A
point of Justice Holmes's 'unconscentious had man' seeking to avoid the
law, law must he known, that is to say, it must he so made that it can he
known. [1074C-E]

4.(ii) Delegated or subordinate Legislation is all pervasive and
B there is hardly any field of activity where governance by delegated or t
subordinate legislative powers is not as important if not more impor-
tant, than governance by Parliamentary legislation. But unlike
Parliamentary Legislation which is publicly made, delegated or subor-
dinate Legislation, is often made unobtrusively in the chambers of a
Minister, a Secretary to the Government or other official dignitary. It
C is, therefore, necessary that subordinate Legislation, in order to take
effect, must he published or promulr,ated in some suitable manner,
whether such publication or promulgation is prescribed by the parent i
statute or not. [1074E-F]

4.(iii) Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of publica-
D lion or promulgation tliat mode must he followed. Where the parent
statute is silent, but the subordinate Legislation itself prescribes the
manner of publication such a mode of publication may be sufficient, if
reasonable. If the subordinate Legislation, does not prescribe the mode
of publication or ·if the subordinate Legislation prescribes a plainly
unreasonable mode of publication it will take effect only when it is ._.
E published from the customarily recognised official channel, namely, the
Official Gazette or some other reasonable mode of publication. There
may be subordinate Legistaion which is concerned with a few indivi-
duals or is confined to small local areas. In such cases publication or
promulgation by other means may he sufficient. [1074F-H; 107SA]

F 4.(iv) In the present case, s.13(4) has prescribed the mode of ~
publication of Outline Development Plan and the Regulations. It
requires the Outline Development Plan a..'ld the Regulations to he
published in the prescribed manner and the Plan and particulars to be
permanently displayed in the office of the Director and the Planning
Authority and a copy to he kept available for the inspection of the
G public at the office of the Planning Authority. The particulars referred
to presumably are the particulars mentioned in s.12(2) of the Act con-
sisting of various reports, including the Regulations. 'The prescribed j,
manner' is what is prescribed by Rule 33, that is, publication in the
Official Gazette. [1075A-C]

H 4.(v) Under s.9(1) and 9(2) also the Outline Development Plan is
B.K. SRINIVASAN v. STATE OF KAR. 1059

required to he published in 'the prescribed manner'. The prescribed
manner for the purposes of sul>-s.(l) and (2) of s.9 is that prescribed A
hy Rule 32. Rule 32 prescribes making a copy of the Plan available for
inspectiOn, publishing a notice in Form No.II in the Official Gazette and
in one or more newspapers and displaying a notice in Form No.II at the
office of the Planning Authority and at other specified places. [I075C-E]
~
B
4.(vi) Rule 33 speaks of publication of approved Outline Develop-
ment Plan and Regulations in the Official Gazette suggestive of a re-
quirement that the Outline Development Plan and Regulations should

··~ bodily be incorporated in the Official Gazette. But if the entire scheme of
the Act and the rule is considered as an integral whole it becomes
obvious that whats. 13(4) contemplates besides permanantly displaying
the Plan and the particulars in the offices of Director and Planning c
Authority and keeping available a copy for the inspection of the public
at the office of Planning Authority, is a. public notice to the general
public that the Plan and Regulations are permanently displayed and are
available for inspection by the public. Such public notice is required to
be given by a publication in the Official Gazette. This is how it was D
understood by the authority and everyone else concerned and this is
how it was done in the present case. This appears to be a reasonable and
a rational interpretation of s.13(4) and Rule 33 in the setting and the
scheme. [10750-H]

4.(vii) Section 13(!) requires the provisional Outline Develop- E
ment Plan and particulars to be published by notification in the Official
Gazette with a view to invite comments from the public. What was
published in the present case under s.13(1) was also a notice in Form
No. II and not the whole of the Plan and particulars. Such publication
evoked considerable public response. As many as 600 representations
from individuals and Institutions were received. Therefore everyone F
concerned, i.e., the Government, the Director, the Planning Authority
and the public, individual and institution alike, thought that publica·
tion of a notice in the Gazette inviting the attention of the public to the
display and availability for inspection of the Plan and particulars was
all that was contemplated by the provisions providing for publication.
There is oo reason or justification to adopt an interpretation which departs G
from common wtderstandingoftbe Adaocl the Rules. [1075H; I076A-C]

Shalagram Jhajharia v. National Co. Ltd. & Ors., [1965] 35 Com-
pany Cases 706, Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. v. Synthetics & Chemi-
cals Ltd. & Ors., [1971] 41 Company Cases 377,Municipal Board, l'ush-
kar v. Stare Transport Authority, Rajasthan & Ors., [ 1963] Suppl. 2 H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

S.C.R. 373 and Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports, Madras v. .;.,
A
M/s. Aminchand Mutha etc., [1966] I S.C.R. 262, distinguished.

5. The effect of the non-performance of a duty imposed by a
statute in the manner prescribed by the statute is not discovered by a
simple answer to the question whether the statute is mandatory or
B directory. These are not simple chemical reactions. The question +
whether a statutory requirement is mandatory or directory cannot itself
be answered easily. Many considerations must prevail and the object
and the context are the most important. [1077A-B]

Liverpool Borough v. Turner, [1861] 30 L J Ch 379, referred to. J
c 6.(i) The High Court was of the view that such defect as there was i
in regard to publication of the Plan was cured by s. 76J, the Omnibus
Curative clause, called by this Court as the "Ganga" clause. Provisions
similar to s. 76J are found in several modern Acts and their object is to
put beyond challenge defects of constitution of statutory bodies and
D defects of procedure which have not led to any substantial prejudice. A
defective publication which has otherwise served its purpose is not suffi-
cient to render illegal what is published and that such defect is cured by
Section 76 J. [1077B-D]

Bangalore Woollen, Cotton & Silk Mills Co. Ltd: Bangalore v.
E Corporation of the City of Bangalore, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 707 and
Municipal Board, Sitapur v. Prayag Narain Saigal & Firms Moosaram
Bhagwandas, [1969] 3 S.C.R. 387, followed.

6.(ii) In the present case, there certainly was an effort to bring
the Plan and Regulations to the notice of the public by giving notice of
F the Plan in the Official Gazette. Non-publication of the Plan in the
Official Gazette was, therefore, a curable defect capable of being cured
bys. 76J. [1077H; 1078A-B]

7. Failure of the appellants to plead want of publication or want
of knowledge assumes importance. In the answer to the Writ Petitions,
G the appellants took up the substantial 1>lea that they had complied with
the requirements of the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations
but not that they had no knowledge of any such requirement. It can
safely be said that the defect or irregularity did not effect the merits of
the case. [1078B]

H 8. The Outline Development Plan and the Regulations are not
B.K. SRINIVASAN v. STATE OF KAR. (REDDY, J.] 1061

distinct from each other. The Regulations are born out of the Plan and
A
the Plan thrives on the Regulations. The Plan is the basis for the Regu-
lations and the Regulations are what make the plan effective. Without
the Regulations, the Plan virtually becomes a dead letter. The reference
in the four clauses of s.13, where the word 'Plan' or the 'Outline
Development Plan' is used, is to the core plan, without the particulars
and the Regulations and not the whole of the Outline Development Plan B
which must include the Regulations. What the different phraseology is
meant to convey is to emphasise the different parts of the Plan which
have to be forwarded to the Government, considered by the Govern-
ment, made available for inspection by the public, as the case may be
and to the extent necessary. Merely because the words "and Regula-
tions" are added to the word •Plan', the Regulations are not to be
treated as not constituting part of the Plan even as when a building is c
sold along with the fixtures, it does not mean that the fixtures are not
treated as part of the building. [1078D-Gl

9. Notwithstanding the Regulations some building licences were
granted in contravention of the Regulations but that only exposes the D
deplorable laxity of the concerned authorities and emphasises the need
for greater public vigilance. The present Writ Petitions are forerunners of
such vigilance. [I079C-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
2780-8 I of 1982 E

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.6. 1982 of the Karnataka
High Court in Writ Petition No.3386 and 3387 of 1981

I
K.S. Cooper, Dr. Y.S. Chitale. Mrs. P.S. Shroff, S.S. Shroff and
Mrs. Kiran Chaudhary for the Appellants. F

M. Veerappa, A.K. Sharma, K.N. Singh. S.S. Javali, G.P.
Shivaprakash and B.P. Singh for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Bangalore was a beautiful city-once.
It was a city with magic and charm, with elegant avenues, gorgeous
flowers, lovely gardens and plentiful spaces. Not now. That was before
the invasion of concrete and steel, of soot and smoke, of high-rise and
the fast buck. Gone are the flowers, gone are the trees, gone are the
avenues, gone are the spaces. We are now greeted with tall puffing H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

chimneys and monstrous high-rise buildings, both designed to hurt the
A eye, the environment and the man. But they are thought by many as
symbols of progress and modernity. They have come to stay. Perhaps
they are necessary. Nostalgic sentiments, we suppose, must yield to
modern societal requirements. Smoking Chimneys produce much
needed goods. High-rise buildings save much-scarce space. They have
a place in the scheme of things. But where, how, to what extent, at t
B
what cost, are the questions raised by some aggrieved citizens of Ban-
galore. They want congestion to be prevented, population density to
be controlled, lung spaces to be provided where people can breath,
existing recreational facilities to be preserved and improved, pollution
and health hazards to be removed, civic and social amenities to be
j
provided etc. All these require a balanced use of available land. It is
c with that object that the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act was
enacted in 1961 and it is with the interpretation of some of the provi-
sions of that Act that we are concerned in these appeals.

The problem and the pain have been. well brought out by the
Chairman of the Bangalore Urban Arts Commission (4th respondent
D before the High Court) in the Chairman·s response to an editorial in a
local newspaper. !tis extracted in the Additional Statement filed in the
High Court by the Writ Petitioners. He says, "when we speak of saving
Bangalore's skyline and its cherished character, we are apt to be mis-
understood even by some well-meaning citizens. Vested interests and
busybodies with an easy conscience would in any case rubber wall any
E consideration of argument because the present time, with the skyroc-
keting property value, is a great opportunity for them to "make hay".
They would rather sell the city than dwell on its future.

We are not speaking only of the central areas of the city-even
when we regard them, understandably enough as more precious than
F the rest of the city. Nor are we trying to guard the City's .supposed
"colonial solitude" which, we know, vanished many decades ago. We
are not afflicted with irrational nostalgia and have no fetish about
bungalows and court yards. We are aware of the dynamics of a modem
city. All that we want-and it was ably summed up in your editorial is
that we must prevent any more ugliness and haphazardness, of which
G we have had more than what Bangalore can take if it is to stay as the
I
City Beautiful, with its planned spaciousness and (still) largely un-
clustered skyline. We also want, without any further delay. a vigilant,
clearly speltout and scrupulously honest system to ensure an orderly
growth of the city, in "Keeping with the capacity of its services. like
water supply, drainage and roads"'.
1-1
B.K. SRINIVASAN v. STATE OF KAR. (REDDY, J.l 1063
I entirely agree that for new areas we must provide for .more
density of population if we are to get adequate mileage from per capi- A
tal expenditure; and if we are to release sufficient lung-spaces for
recreational and community activities. In fact, we have long back sug-
gested to City Planners to plan for self-contained and self-sufficient
clusters of multiple-storey blocks, with their own plazas, shopping and
recreational centres, in carefully selected locations and in keeping with B
the available services.

Again, there is no doubt that coverage per plot must be syste-
matically reduced through imaginatively formulated bye-laws, if we
are to continue the garden-city character of the City's new areas. It is
utterly mystifying however, that such obviously valid thoughts and
suggestions should end with the plea for "concentrated growth"- c
presumely in the central area of the city and preferably with high-rise
buildings. Such growth which is bound to obliterate what we have still
left of this beautiful city and put further strains on its traffic, water
supply and drainage, is certainly not going to help the proletarian
office-goer or house-seeker. It will serve only the big-time builder, the D
high-spending rich and-last but not least-the fast-buck chasing
wheeler-dealers and busybodies mentioned above. ·

"Now that the State Government has announced a clear policy in
this behalf, there is no reason why we should not expect the best. This
Commission has made its own contribution to the formulation of a new E
set of building bye-laws which aim at the much needed regulation-on
fully modem lines-of this City's future growth, and which leave
minimum scope for corruption. We hope that these will be adopted
soon. We look forward to a new approach and a new era-free from
the stench of corruption. We hope that these will be adopted soon. We
look forward to a new approach and a new era-free from the strench F
of corruption, innuendoes and loose talk Of "motives", and characteri-
sed by future-thinking. After all, we have the City Beautiful because
of the future thinking and hard work of the planners and adminis-
trators."

Raj Mahal Vilas Extension is a sparsely developed area of the G
city of Bangalore which the Bangalore Improvement Trust Board
desired to develop under the provisions of the city of Bangalore
Improvement Act, 1945. Land was acquired and plots were allotted to
several people. A lay-out was prepared and conditions were imposed
for construction of houses on the sites. The present appelllants as well
as the petitioners before the High Court were all of them allottees H
1064

A
SUPREME COURT lrnPORTS (1987) 1 S.C.R.

from the Improvement Trust Board. One of the conditions of allot-
ment was that the sites were not to be sub-divided and not more than
.
on,e dwelling house was to be constructed on each of the sites. Appa-
rently multistoreyed, high-rise buildings were not within the contem-
plation of either the Improvement Trust Borad or the allottees at the
time of allotment. However, the petitioners before the High Court
B were dismayed to find such high-rise buildings coming up in the Raj +
Mahal Vilas Extension. Apprehending that there was going to be an
invasion of the privacy of the residents of the locality, a disturbance of
the peace and tranquillity of the residential area, an interference with
basic civic amenities consequent on haphazard rise of high-rise build- j
ings, and exposing of the residents to all manners of health hazards and
interference with their way of living, a number of residents of the
c locality submitted a memorandum to the Governor and the Chief i
Minister of the State to take appropriate action to prevent the
construction of high-rise buildings in a residential area such as the Raj
Mahal Vilas Extension. There was no response from the authorities. In
desperation, some of the persons who submitted the memorandum
D resorted to 'Public Interest Litigation' and filed the writ petitions out
of which the present appeals arise. Their principal complaint was that
the Outline Development Plan for Bangalore which had been pub-
lished in the prescribed manner had been ignored by the authorities in
granting permission to the appellants to construct the high-rise build- ~
ings. The first of the grounds mentioned in the writ petitions was that
E permits had been granted to construct eight-floor residential buildings
going to a height of 80 feet whereas under the regulations the maximum
permissible height of a building was only 55 feet. The inconveniences,
discomforts and the hazards to which such a high-rise buHding in a
residential locality would expose the other residents of the locality
were explained in the writ petition and writs were soug:n to quash the
F permits granted for construction and to restrain the present appellants
from constructing the eight-floor buildings and to direct them to de-
molish the structures already put up. There was also a prayer to re-
quire the Bangalore Urban Arts Commission to recommend to the
State of Karnataka against the construction of high-rise buildings in
any of the existing extensions of Bangalore. Writ Petition No. 3386 of
G 1981 out of which arises Civil Appeal No. 2780 of 1982 and Writ
Petition No. 3387 of 1981 out of which arises Civil Appeal No. 2781 of
1982 were filed on 25.2.81. In Writ Petition No. 3386 of 1981 an l
interim order was initially refused by a learned Single Judge but on
appeal a Division Bench of the High Court granted an interim order
restraining the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2780 of 1982 from rais-
H ing further construction. However, in the special leave petition filed by
B.K. SRINIVASAN v. STATE OF KAR. !REDDY, J.I 1065

the appellants the order of the learned Single Judge was restored
subject to an undertaking given by the appellants that in the event of A
the original writ petition being allowed and the construction being
required to be pulled down, the appellants will not raise any objection
and will not plead the construction during the pendency of the writ
petition as a defence to the pulling down of the construction. The
order of the Supreme Court was made on 2.6.81. In W.P. No. 3387 of B
1981 the High Court made an interim order on 24.7.81 permitting the
appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2781 of 1982 to proceed with the con-
struction subject to the appellants giving an undertaking similar to the
undertaking given by the appellants in the other connected appeal. We
find from the judgment of the High Court that in W.P. No. 3386 of
1981 only excavation work had been done by the time of the filing of
the petition and that the work was completed only after the undertak- c
ing was given to the Supreme Court. In the other case the ground floor
had been constructed and pillars had been put up for the next floor
when the writ petition was filed. The work was completed after the
undertaking was given to the Division Bench of the High Court. We
may add that again in this Court when the appellants sought interim D
orders to enable them to complete the construction during the
pendency of the present appeals they gave an undertaking that they
would complete the construction work of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th
floors at their own risk and cost and that they will raise no objection
whatever to this Court passing an order for demolition of the said
floors if the Court was ultimately inclined to pass such an order and E
that they would claim no compensation for demolition, if ordered.

The present appellants contested the writ petitions. The writ
petitions appeared to have been argued in the first instance before a
learned single Judge who after hearing the petitions for some consider-
able time referred them for hearing by a Division Bench. The Division F
Bench commenced hearing the writ petitions on 16.3.82 and on 22.3.82
a further contention was raised by the appellants that the Outline
Development Plan and the Regulations were never published, conse-
quently they have never become effective and, therefore, there was no
need for any compliance with the requirements of the plan and the
regulations. As it turns out this is the only contention which was finally G
argued before the High Court and before us. The High Court over-
ruled the contention and declared the licences granted for construction
illegal and directed the Commissioner, Corporation of the City of
Bangalore to modify the licences so as to bring them in conformity
with the Outline Development Plan and the Zonal Regulations
appended thereto promulgated under Section 13(4) of the Kamataka H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) 1 S.C.R.

Town and Country Planning Act and take all consequential action in
A
accordance with law.

Shri Cooper, learned counsel for the appellants urged that publi-
cation of the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations in the
prescribed manner, that is, in the Official Gazette was mandatory
B under Section-1-3(4) and that failure to so publish the Outline Develop-
ment Plan and the Regulations rendered them ineffective. The
licences already granted to the appellants could not be cancelled or
directed to be modified so as to be in accord with the Outline Develop-
ment Plan and the Regulations. It was further urged that the Regula-
tions were distinct from the Outline Development Plan and that in the
case of the Regulations, there was no attempt whatever at publication.
c It was submitted that the High Court was in error in holding that
Section 76J cured whatever defel'! there was in regard to the publica-
tion of the Plan and the Regulations. It was said that the High Court
was also in error in holding that the Outline Development Plan and the
Regulations became effective as soon as they were approved by the
D Government under Section 13(3) of the Act irrespective of the date of
publication under Section 13(4). On the other hand, it was submitted
by Shri Javali, learned counsel for the writ petitioners in the High
Court that there was sufficient publication of the Plan and the Regula-
tions, that the Plan and the Regulations were always kept available for
inspection at the office of the concerned authorities and that it was not
E the case of the appellants originally that there was no publication and
that they had no knowledge of the Plan and the Regulations. It was
only after-thought, put forward in the course of the arguments at the
final stage of the hearing of the writ petitions. It was submitted that
such defect as there was in the publication of the Plan and the Regula-
tions was effectively cured by Section 76J and the passage of time. It
F was also pointed out that the Regulations were an integral part of the
Outline Development Plan.

In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is
necessary to refer to the relevant statutory provisions.

G In 1961 the Bangalore Metropolitan Planning Board was formed.
The Board prepared an Outline Development Plan (For short, j..
O.D.P.). In Fellruary 1963 the Mysore Town and Country Planning
Act, 1961 came into force with effect. from January 15, 1965. Section
81-A(a) of the Act provides that the Outline Development Plan for
the Bangalore Metropolitan Area prepared by the Bangalore Metro-
H politan Planning Board shall be deemed to be the Outline Develop-
B.K. SRINIVASAN v. STATE OF KAR. (REDDY, J.l 1067

ment Plan of the Planning Area comprising the City of Bangalore,
A
prepared under the Act, by the Planning Authority of the Area. Sec-
tion 81-( a) further provides that the said plan along with the particu-
lars specified in clauses (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) of Section 12(2) shall be
published and submitted to the State Government for provisional
approval. Section 81-A(b) provides that on receipt of the plan and
particulars, the State Government shall after making such modifica- B
tions as it deems fit, return the plan and the particulars to the Planning
Authority, which shall thereupon take further action in accordance
with the provisions of Section 13.

Section 2(3) defines 'land use' to mean the major use to which a
plot of land is being used on any specified date. Section 2(4) defines
'notification' to mean a notification published in the Official Gazette. c
'Planning Area' is defined by Section 2(6) to mean the area declared to be
a local planning area under the Act in the case of the local planning area
comprising the city of Bangalore. 'Planning Authority' is defined to
mean the Planning Authority constituted under the Act. Section 2(9)
defines 'prescribed' to me·an prescribed by rules made under the Act. 0
Section 2( 11) defines 'regulations' to mean the Zonal Regulations gov-
erning land-use made under the Act.

Chapter III of the Act deals with Outline Development Plan
(O.D.P.). Section 9(1) empowers the Planning Authority to prepare
and publish in the prescribed manner an Outline Development Plan for E
the area within its jurisdiction and submit it to the State Government
for provisional approval. Section 9(4) prescribes that a copy of the
O.D.. P. sent to the State Government under sub-section( l) shall be
kept open for inspection by the public at the head office of the Plan-
ning Authority before carrying out a survey for the purpose of prepar-
ing an O.D.P. for such an area. A Planning Authority is required by F
Section 10 to make a declaration of its intention to prepare such plan
and to despatch a copy of the same to the State Government for
publication in the Official Gazette and is also required to publish in the
prescribed manner an invitation to the public to make suggestions. All
suggestions made in response to the invitation within the prescribed
period are required to be considered by the Planning Authority before G
submitting the plan to the State Government. Section 12 deals with the
contents of Outline Development Plan and we think it necessary to
extract here the whole of the section. Section l3 deals with approval of
the Outline Development Plan and we think that it is necessary to
extract Section 13 also. Sections 12 and 13 are as follows:
H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

"S.12. Contents of Outline Development Plan-( I) An
A
Outline Development Plan shall generally indicate the
manner in which the development and improvement of the
entire planning area within the jurisdiction of the Planning
Authority are to be carried out and regulated. In particular
it shall include,-
B
(a) a general land-use plan and zoning of land-use for resi-
dential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational,
educational and other public purposes;

(b) proposals for roads and highways;
j
c (c) proposals for the reservation of land for the purposes
of the Union, any State, any local authority or any other
authority established by law in India;

(d) proposals for declaring certain areas as areas of special
D control, development in such areas being subject to such
regulations as may be made in regard to building line,
height of buildings, floor area ratio, architectural features
and such other particulars as may be prescribed;

(e) such other proposals for public or other purposes as
E may from time to time be approved by the Planning
Authority or directed by the State Government in this
behalf.

Explanation-'building line' means the line up to
which the plinth of a building adjoining a street may
F lawfully extend and includes the lines prescribed, if any, in
any scheme.

(2) The following particulars shall be published and
sent to the State Government through the Director along
with the Outline Development Plan, namely:-
G
(i) a report of the surveys carried out by the Planning Au-
thority before the preparation of such plan;

(ii) a report explaining the provisions of such Plan;

H (iii) regulations in respect of each land use zone to enforce
B.K. SRINNASAN v. STATE OF KAR. [REDDY, J.I 1069

the provisions of such plan and explaining the manner in
A
which necessary permission for developing any land can be
obtained from the Planning Authority;

(iv) a report of the stages by which it is proposed to meet
the obligations imposed on the Planning Authority by such
+ ·a plan; B

(v) an approximate estimate of the cost involved in the
acquisition of lands reserved for public purposes."

.\ "S.13. Approval of the Outline Development Plan~( 1)
On receipt of the Outline Development Plan with the
particulars referred to in Section 12 from the Planning c
Authority under sub-section ( 1) of Section 9, or after such
plan and particulars are prepared and published under sub-
section (2) of Section 9 the State Government after making
such modifications as it deems fit or as may be advised by
the Director, shall return through the Director, the plan D
and the particulars to the Planning Authority, which shall
thereupon publish, by notification, the plan and the parti-
culars inviting public comments within one month of such
publication.

(2) If within one month of the publication under sub- E
section ( 1) any member of the public communicates in writ-

/ ing to the Planning Authority any comments on the plan
and the regulations, the Planning Authority shall consider
such comments and resubmit the plan and the regulations

( to the State Government, through the Director with recom-
mendations for such modifications in the plan and regula-
tions as it considers necessary in the light of the public
comments made on the plan and regulations.
F

(3) The State Government, after receiving the plan
and the regulations and the recommendation for modifica-
tions from the Planning Authority, shall in consultation G
with the Director, give its final approval to the plan and the
regulations with such modifications as the Director may
advice in the light of the comments and the recommenda-
tions of the Planning Authority or otherwise.

(4) The Planning Authority, shall then publish in the H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 1 S.C.R.

prescribed manner the Outline Development Plan and the
A
Regulations as approved by the Government. The plan and
the particulars shall be permanently displayed in the offices
of the Director and the Planning Authority and a copy shall
be kept available for inspection of the public at the office of
the Planning Authority."
B
Section 14 speaks of 'Enforcement of the Outline Development +
Plan and the Regulations'. Section 14( 1) prescribes that on and from
the date on which a declaration of intention to prepare an outline is
published under sub-section ( 1) of Section 10, every land use, every
change in land use and every development in the area shall conform to
the provisions of the Act, the Outline Development Plan and the
J
c Regulations as finally approved by the State Government under sub-
section (3) of Section 13.

The only other provision of the Act to which reference is neces-
sary is, what we may call the, "Ganga" clause', Section 76J which
D provides for 'Validation of acts and proceedings'. It is as follows:

"76J. Validation of acts and proceedings-No act done or
proceeding taken under this Act shall be questioned on the
ground merely of,

E (a) the existence of any vacancy in, or any defect in the
constitution of the Board or any Planning Authority;,-

(b) any person having ceased to be a member;

(c) any person associated with the Board or any planning
- F authority under section 4F having voted in contravention
of the said section; or

(d) the failure to serve a notice on any person, where no
substantial injustice has resulted from such failure; or
l
G (e) any omission, defect or irregularity not affecting the
merits of the case."
We may also refer here to the rules relating to publication. Rule
32 provides for "publication of Outline Development Plan under sub-
I"' According to Hindu tradition the waters of the Ganga purify. cleans the sins and
H re1uedy all insufficiencies.
B.K. SRINNASAN v. STATE OF KAR. !REDDY, J.) 1071

section (I) and sub-section (2) of Section 9". It prescribes that the
publication shall be made by making a copy of the Plan available for A
inspection and displaying a notice in Form II, (a) at the office of the
Planning Authority and (b) at such other places as may be specified by
the Planning Authority. The Planning Authority is also required to
publish a notice in Form II in the Official Gazette and in one or more
+ newspapers. The publication under Section 9(2) is also required to be B
made in the same manner except that reference to Planning Authority
is to be construed as a reference to the Director. Rule 33 providesfor
{
'Publication of Outline Developmeni Plan and Regulations under
Section 13( 4)' and stipulates that the Outline Development Plan and
,.\ .. the Regulations as approved by the State Government under sub-
section (3) of Section 13 shall be published in the Official Gazette.
c
Form II referred to in Rule 32 is as follows:

FORM NO. II
(Rule 32)

NOTICE OF PUBLICATION OF OUTLINE DEVE" O
LOPMENT PLAN

Notice is hereby gi\<Cn that an Outline Development
Plan of ............. area has been prepared under the
Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (Mysore
E
Act 11 of 1963) and a copy thereof is available for inspec-
tion at the office of the Planning Authority during office
hours.

If there be any objection or suggestion in respect of the

J Outline Development Plan, it should be lodged on or be-
fore the ......... .

Every such objection or suggestion should either be pre-
sented in the office of the Planning Authority or sent by
F

registered post to the Planning Authority."
G
We said earlier that the Outline Development Plan for the
Bangalore Metropolitan Area was prepared by the Bangalore
Metropolitan Planning Board and that under Section 811 of the
Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, it was deemed to be the
Outline Development Plan of the planning area comprising the city of
Bangalore, prepared under the Act, by the Planning Authority of such H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) 1 S.C.R.

area. A 'Notice of publication of Outline Development Plan' was
A
published in the Mysore Gazette on 21.12.1967 in Form II. It was as
follows:

"OFFICE OF THE PLANNING AUTHORITY
BANGALORE CITY, PLANNING AREA, BAN"
B GALORE"9

Notice of Publication of Outline Development Plan

Notice is hereby given that an Outline Development ~
Plan of Bagalore City Planning Area has been prepared
under the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961
c (Mysore Act 11 of 1963) and a copy thereof is available for ~
inspection at the office of the Planning Authority in
Seshadri Road, Bangalore City during office hours.

If there be any objection or suggestion in respect of
D the Outline Development Plan, it should be lodged on or
before the 15th day of February, 1968.

Every such objection or suggestion should either be
presented in the office of the Planning Authority or sent by ~
registered post to the Planning Authority.
E
K. Balasubramanyam
CHAIRMAN"

After the State Government provisionally approved the Plan 'Notice
of publication of Outline Development Plan' was published in the ·1
F Mysore Gazette dated 10.10.68 again in Form II. The Notification was
in the following terms:

"OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN, PLANNING
AUTHORITY BANGALORE CITY PLANNING
AREA, BANGALORE,9
G
Notice of Publication of Ouline Development Plan.
l
Notice is hereby given that an Outline Development
Plan of Bangalore City Planning Area has been prepared
under the Mysore Town and· Country Planning Act, 1961
H (Mysore Act 11 of 1963). The said Plan has been provision"
B.K. SRINIVASAN v. STATE OF KAR. [REDDY, J.l 1073

ally approved by the Government of Mysore as per Section
A
13(1) of the above Act. A copy of the above approved plan
and tlie report are available for inspection at the office of
the Planning Authority in Seshadri Road, Bangalore City
during office hours.

+ If there be any objection or suggestion in respect of B
the Outline Development Plan it should be lodged within
30 days from the date of publication of this notice in the
Gazette.

Every such objection or suggestion. should either be
presented in the office of the Planning Authority or sent by
registered post to the Planning Authority.
c
CHAIRMAN
PLANNING AUTHORITY"

It appears that in response to the invitation to file objections, as many D
as 600 representations and objections were received from individuals,
institutions, associations, Chambers of Commerce etc. The Outline
Development Plan was finally approved by the Government and a
~ notification to that effect was published in the Mysore Gazette dated
13.7.1972 in the following terms:
E
"OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN, Pi,ANNING
AUTHORITY BANGALORE CITY PLANNING
AREA, BANGALORE-9.
Dated, 27th June 1972.

I Notice of Publication of Outline Development Plan.

In pursuance of Rule 33 of the Mysore Planning
Authority Rules 1965 Notice is hereby given that an Out-
line ·Development Plan of Bangalore City Planning Area
F

has been prepared under the Mysore Town and Country
Planning Act, 196 l (Mysore Act 11 of 1963). The said plan G
has been finally approved by the Government of Mysore as
per Section 13(3) of the above Act. A copy of the above
approved plan and the report are available for inspection at
the office of the Planning Authority in Seshadri Road,
Bangalore City, during office hours.
H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987) 1 S.C.R.

M.S. Ramachandra
A Chairman
Planning Authority."
It is seen that at every stage the public were informed by notices
published in the Official Gazette that the Outline Development Plan
B was avail~ble fo~ inspection at the office of the Planning Authority,
though 11 1s not disputed that the Plan and the Regulations themselves
wer~ ne~er published as such in the G3!'etle. The question for consid-
erat10n 1s whether the intimation to the public through the Official
c:>azette that t?e Outline Development Plan was available for inspec-
ll?n at the office of the Planning Authority is a sufficient compliance
with the reqmrement of Section 13(4) regulating the publication of the
C approved Plan and Regulations?

There can be no doubt about the proposition that where a law,
whether Parliamentary or subordinate, demands compliance, those
that are governed must be notified directly and reliably of the law and
all changes and additions made to it by various processes. Whether law
D is viewed from the standpoint of the 'conscientious good man' seeking
to abide by the law or from the standpoint of Justice Holmes's
'Unconscientious bad man' seeking to avoid the law, law must be
known, that is to say, it must be so made that it can be known. We
know that delegated or subordinate legislation is all pervasive and that
there is hardly any field of activity where governance by delegated or
E subordinate legislative powers is not as important if not more
important, than governance by Parliamentary legislation. But unlike
Parliamentary Legislation which is publicly made, delegated or subor-
dinate legislation is often made, unobtrusively in the chambers of a

I
Minister, a Secretary to the Government or other official dignitary. It
is, therefore, necessary that subordinate legislation, in order to take
F effect, must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner,
whether such publication or promulgation is prescribed by the parent
statute or not. It will then take effect from the date of such publication
or promulgation. Where the parent statute prescribes the mode of
publication or promulgation that mode must be followed. Where the
parent statute is silent, but the subordinate legislation itself precribes
G the manner of publication, such a mode of publication may be suffi-
cient, if reasona.ble. If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe
the mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation prescribes a
plainly unreasonable mode of publication, it will take effect only when
it is published through the customarily recognised official channel,
namely, the Official Gazette or some other reasonable mode of publi-
H cation. There may be subordinate legislation which is concerned with a
B.K. SRINNASAN v. STATE OF KAR. (REDDY, J.l 1075

),. few individuals or is confined to small local areas. In such cases publi- A
\ cation or promulgation by other means may be sufficient.*

~ In the present case Section 13(4) has prescribed the mode of
'• publication of the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations. It
requires the Outline Development Plan and the Regulations to be
+
- published in the prescribed manner and the Plan and particulars to be B
permanently displayed in the offices of the Director and the Planning
Authority and a copy to be kept available for the inspection of the
public at the office of the Planning Authority. The particulars referred
~
,\ to, we presume, are the particulars mentioned in Section 12(2) of the
Act consisting of v~rious reports, including the Regulations. 'The pre-
scribed manner' is what is prescribed by Rule 33, that is, publication in
the Official Gazette. If we now turn to Section 9(1) and 9(2), we. find
c
)--
that there too the the Outline Development Plan is required to be
published in 'the prescribed manner'. The prescribed manner for the
purposes of sub-sections ( 1) and (2) of Section 9 is that prescribed by
Rule 32. Rule 32 we have seen prescribes making a copy of the Plan
available for inspection, publishing a notice in Form No. II ill! the D
Official Gazette and in one or more newspapers and displaying a
notice in Form No.II at the office of Planning Authority and at other
specified places. It is true that Rule 33 speaks of publication of ap-
proved Outline Development Plan and Regulations in the Official
~ Gazette, suggestive of a requirement that the Outline Development
Plan and Regulations should bodily be incorporated in the Official E
Gazette. But if the entire scheme of the Act and the rules is considered
as an integral whole it becomes obvious that what Section 13(4) con-
~
templates besides permanently displaying the plan and the particulars
in the offices of Director and Planning Authority .and keeping avail-

I
able a copy for the inspection ·of the public at the office of Planning
Authority is a public notice to the general public that the Plan and F
Regulations are permanently displayed and are available for inspec-
tion by the public. Such public notice is required to be given by a
publication in the Official Gazette. This is how it was understood by
the authorities and everyone,~lse concerned and this is how it was done
in the present case. This appears to be a reasonable and a rational
interpretation on Section 13(4) and Rule 33 in the setting and the G
scheme. We are of the view that there was compliance with the re-
-.\ quirements of Section 13(4) and Rule 33. We have earlier mentioned
that Section 13(1) requires the provisional Outline Development Plan

*See Narayana Reddy, v. State of Andhra Pradesh= 1969 (.1) Andhra Weekly Repor· H
ter 77.
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987) I S.C.R.

and particulars to be published by notification in the Official Gazette,
A
with a view to invite comments from the public. What was published in
the present case under Section 13( 1) was also a notice in Form No. 11
and not the whole of the Plan and particulars. Such publication evoked
considerable public response. As many as 600 representations from
individuals and institutions were received. That is why we said that
B everyone concerned, that is, the Government, the Director, the Plan-
ning Authority and the public, individual and institution alike, thought +
that publication of a notice in the Gazette inviting the attention of the
public to the display and the availability for inspection of the Plan and
particulars was all that was contemplated by the provisions providing
for publication. We do not think that there is any reason or justifica-
tion for us to adopt an interpretation which departs from common
c understanding of the Act and the Rules.

Shri Cooper invited our attention to Shalagram Jhajharia v. Na-
tional Co. Ltd. & Ors., [ 1965) 35 Company Cases 706 and Firestone
Tyre & Rubber Co. v. Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors., [ 1971] 41
D Company cases 377 to urge that offer of inspection cannot be a substi-
tute for publication. We do not think that these two cases are of
assistance to Shri Cooper. What was laid down in those cases was the
mandatory requirement of a full and frank disclosure of the relevant
facts, in the explanatory note attached to the notice convening a gen-
eral meeting of the company cannot be circumvented by an offer of -4,
E inspection. Another case to which Shri Cooper drew our attention was
Municipal Board, Pushkar v. State Transport Authority, Rajasthan &
Ors., [ 1963) Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 373. In that case the question arose as to

I
what was to be treated as the date of the order of the Regional Trans-
port Authority. Was it the date of the resolution of the Regional
Transport Authority or was it the date on which the resolution was
F brought into effect by publication of the notification? The answer was
that it was the date of the publication of the notification. In Joint Chief
Controller of Imports & Exports, Madras v. M/s. Aminchand Mutha
etc., [1966) 1 S.C.R. 262 another case on which Shri Cooper relied, the
Court held that there was no order prohibiting the import of fountain
pens, since in fact no such order had been published and no such order
G was brought to the notice of the Court. All that was available was an
entry 'nil' against fountain pens in the declaration of policy as to im-
port. We are unable to see how these two cases can be of any help to f
Shri Cooper. Shri Cooper also invited our attention to cases drawing a
distinction between mandatory and directory statutory requirements
but those cases again are of no avail to him in the view that we have
H taken. We also desire to state that the effect of the non-perfor-
B.K. SRINN"8AN •· STATE OF KAR. (REDDY, J.] ton
mance of a duty imposed by a statute in the manner prescribed by
A the statute is not discovered by a simple answer !o the question A
whether the statute is mandatory or directory. These are not simple
chemical reactions. The question whether a statutory requirement is
mandatory or directory cannot itself be answered easily as was pointed
out more than a century ago in Liverpool Borough v. Turner, [ 1861] 30
L J Ch 379. Many considerations must prevail and the object and the
+ context are the most important.
B

The High Court was of the view that such defect as there was in
regard to publication of the Plan was cured by Section 76J, the
,\ Omnibus Curative clause to which we earlier made a reference as the
'Ganga' clause. Provisions similar to s.76J are found in several modem
Acts and their object is to put beyond challenge defects of constitution c
r of statutory bodies and defects of procedure which have not led to any
substantial prejudice. We are inclined to agree with the High Court
that a defective publication which has otherwise served its purpose is
not sufficient to render illegal what is published and that such defect is
cured by Section 76J. The High Court relied on the two decisions of D
this Court Bangalore Woollon, Cotton & Silk Mills Co. Ltd. Bangalore
v. Corporation of the City of Bangalore (1961] 3 S.C.R. 707 and Municipal
Board, Sitapur v. Prayag Narain Saigal & Firm Moosaram Bhagwandas,
(1969] 3 S.C.R. 387. In the first case objection was raised to the imposi-
)... tion of octroi duty on the ground that there was failure to notify the final
resolution of the imposition of the tax in the Government Gazette E
as required by Section 98(2) of the City of Bangalore Municipal Corpora-
tion Act. A Constitution Bench of the Court held that the failure to
publish the final resolution in the Official Gazette was cured by
S.38(l)(b) of the Act which provided that no act done or proceeding
taken under the Act shall be questioned merely on the ground of any

I
defect or irregularity in such act or proceeding, not affecting the merits F
of the case. The Court said that the resolution had been published in
the newspapers and was communicated to those affected and failure to
publish the resolution did not affect the merits of its imposition and
failure to notify the resolution in the Gazette was not fatal to the
legality of the imposition. In the second case it was held that the
non-publication of a special resolution imposing a tax was a mere G
irregularity, since the inhabitants had no right to object to special
resolutions and. had otherwise clear notice of the imposition of the tax.
~ It is true that both these cases relate to non-publication of a resolution
regarding imposition of a tax where the imposition of a tax was
otherwise well known to the public. In the present case the situation
may not be the same but there certainly was an effort to bring the Plan H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

A and regulations to the notice of the public by giving notice of the Plan
in the Official Gazette. Non-publication of the Plan in the Official
Gazette was therefore a curable defect capable of being cured by Sec-
tion 76J. It is here that the failure of the appellants to plead want of
publication or want to knowledge in the first instance assumes impor-
tance. In the answer to the Writ Petitions, the appellants took up the
B substanital plea that they had complied with the requirements of the
Outline Development Plan and the Regulations but not that they had
no knowledge of any such requirement. It can safely be said that the
defect or irregularity did not affect the merits of the case.

Finally, one last submission of Shri Cooper requires to be ex-
C mined. Shri Cooper submitted that Section 13( l) used the words "the
Plan and the particulars", Section 13(2) used the Words "the Plan and
the Regulations," Section 13(3) used the words "the Plan and the
Regulations" and Section 13(4) used the words, "the Outline
Development Plan and the Regulations" as well as the words, "the
Plan and the Regulations". This, according to Shri Cooper, signified
D that the particulars and the Regulations are not to be treated as part of
the Plan but as creations distinct from the Plan. We do not think that
we are entitled to split the unity and identity of the plan as suggested
by the learned counsel. The Outline Development Plan and the Regu-
lations are not distinct from each other. The regulations are born out
'of the Plan and the Plan thrives on the Regulations. The Plan is the
E ' basis for the Regulations and the Regulations are what make the plan
effective. Without the Regulations, the plan virtually becomes a dead
letter. The reference in the four clauses of Section 13, whenever the
word 'Plan' or the 'Outline Development Plan' is used, is to the core
plan, without the particulars and the Regulations and not the whole of
the Outline Development Plan which must include the Regulations.
F What the different phraseology is meant to convey is to emphasise the
different parts of the Plan which have to be forwarded to the Govern-
ment, considered by the Government made available for inspection by
the public, as the case may be and to the extent necessary. Merely
because the words "and Regulations" are added to the word 'Plan',
the Regulations are not to be treated as not constituting part of the
G Plan even as when a building is sold along with the fixtures, it does not
mean that the fixtures are not treated as part of the building. Shri
Cooper drew the distinction between the Plan and the Regulations to
suggest that in the notice published on 27.6.72, the Planning Authority
mentioned that the Plan was available for inspection at the office of
the Planning Authority but made no reference to the Regulations and,
H therefore, it must be considered that' the Regulations were not made
B.K. SRINIVASAN v. STATE OF KAR, !REDDY, J.] 1079

available for inspection and so never published. We do not think that it A
is possible to reach the conclusion suggested by Shri Cooper from the
absence of the reference to the Regulations in the notice. The Au-
thorities justifiably always treated t.he Plan as including the Regula-
tions and we are satisfied that what was kept for inspection was the
Plan along with the Regulations. B

Shri Cooper argued that neither the Municipal Corporation nor
any other civic authority appeared to be aware of the Outline Develop-
ment Plan and the Regulations as was evident from the circumstance
that in the years that passed since the approval of the Plan by the
Government and before the writ petitions were filed, as many as 57
building licences had admittedly been issued in contravention of the C
Regulaiions. It may be that notwithstanding the Regulations some
building licences were granted in contravention of the Regulations but
that only exposes the deplorable laxity of the concerned authorities
and emphasises the need for greater public vigilance. The present Writ
Petitions, we hope, are forerunners of such vigilance. D
In the result we find no merit in the appeals which are accord-
ingly dismissed with costs. The judgment of the High Court will now
be given effect by the authorities, taking note of the several undertak-
ings given to the High Court and this Court at various stages.

A.P.J. Appeals dismissed.

I