PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusPROMOTERS AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR.

            PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION                                 A
                         v.
    PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR.

                            MAY 5, 2004

        [S. RAJENDRA BABU, CJ. AND G.P. MATHUR, J.]
                                                                       B

       Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966-Section 37
-Submission for sanction of proposed amendments of Development
Contr.ol Rules to State Government by Municipal Co1poration-State
Government making some changes before sanction without calling for C
objections/suggestions-Validity of~Held, the State Government has wide
discretion to make minor changes within limits before sanction-On facts,
since such changes were not proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable, they
are valid.
                                                                       D
     State Government issued a directive to appellant-Corporation
under section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966 to amend its Development Control Rules (DCR) in line with
Bombay DCR. The appellant published proposed amendments ofDCR
in Official Gazette and invited objections and suggestions under section E
37(1) of the Act. The appellant submitted the proposed amendments
to the State Government for sanction. The State Government, after
making certain additions to the Rules, sanctioned the proposed
amendments and notified the same. The respondents filed Writ Petilions
before High Court challenging the additions as being beyond the
powers ofthe State Government under section 37(2) of the Act. High F
Court allowed the Writ Petitions. Hence the appeal by the appellant-
Corporation.

     Allowing the appeals, the Court
                                                                       G
     HELD: I.I. Under section 37(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and
Town Planning Act, 1966, the Planning Authority, after inviting
objections and suggestions regarding the proposed amendm<!nt and
after giving notice to all affected persons, shall submit the proposed
modification for sanction to the State Government. The deliberation H
                                 207
   208               SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A with the public before making the amendment is over at this stage. The
  State Government, thereafter, under Section 37(2) of the Act is given
  absolute liberty to make or not to make necessary inquiry before
  granting sanction. Again,, while according sanction, the State
  Government may do so with or without modifications. The State
B Government could impose such conditions as it deem fit. It is also
  permissible for the State Government to refuse the sanction. This is the
  true meaning of the Section 37(2) of the Act. It is difficult to uphold
  the contrary interpretation given by the High Court. The main
  limitation for the State Government made under section 37(1) of
  the Act is that no authority can propose an amendment so as to
C change the basic character of the development plan. The proposed
  amendment could only be minor within the limits of the development
  plan. And for such minor changes, it is only normal for the State
  Government to exercise a wide discretion, by keeping various relevant
  factors in mind. Again, if it is arbitrary or unreasonable, the same
D could be challenged. [212-A-DI
       1.2. The making of Development Control Rules (DCR) or
  amendment thereof are legislative functions. Therefore, section 37 of
  the Act has to be viewed as repository of legislative powers for effecting
E amendments to OCR. That legislative power of amending OCR is
  delegated to State Government. The true interpretation of section 37(2)
  of the Act permits the State Government to make necessary
  mouifica!ions or put conditions while granting sanction. In section
  37(2) of the Act, the legislature has not intended to provide for a public
F hearing before according sanction. The procedure for making such
  amendment is provided in section 37. Delegated legislation cannot be
  questioned for violating principles of natural justice in its making
  except when the statute itself provides for that requirement. Where the
  legislature has not chosen to provide for any notice or hearing, no one
  can insist upon it and it is not permissible to read natural justice into
G such legislative activity. Moreover, a provision for 'such inquiry as it
  may consider necessary' by a subordinate legislating body is generally
  an enabling provision to facilitate the subordinate legislating body to
  obtain relevant information from any source and it is not intended to
  vest any right in anybody. While exercising legislative functions, unless
H unreasonableness or arbitrariness is pointed out, it is not open for the
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPN. v. PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ASSON.                209

Court to interfere. [212-E-H; 213-A-B)                                    A

     Union of Indic;.& Anr. v. Cynamide India Ltd. & Anr., (1987) 2 SCC
720; HSSK Niyami & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr, (1990] 4 SCC 516;
Canara Bank v. Debasis Das, [2003) 4 SCC 557 and ONGC v. Assn. of
Natural Gas Consuming Industries of Gujarat, (1990) Supp sec 397, B
referred to.

      1.3. The Development Control Rules are framed under section
158 of the Act. Rules framed under the provisions of a statute form
part of the statute. In other words, they have statutory force. It is also C
a settled position of law that there could be no 'promissory estoppel'
against a statute. Therefore, the High Court again went wrong by
invoking the principle of 'promissory estoppel' to allow the petition
filed by the respondents. (213-C-E)

     General Officer Commanding-in-Chief& Anr. v. Dr. Subhash Chandra D
Yadav & Anr., [1988) 2 SCC 351; A. P Pollution Control Board II v.
M V Nayudu, [2001) 2 SCC 62; Sales Tax Officer & Anr. v. Shree Durga
Oil Mills, [1998) I SCC 572 and Sharma Transport v. Govt. ofAP, (2002)
2 sec 188, referred to.
                                                                          E
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3800 of
2003.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.2002 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 5198 of 200 I.
                                                                          F
                                 WITH

     C.A. Nos. 3801, 3802, 3803, 3804 of 2003.

     Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, R.F. Nariman, C.A. G
Sundaram, G.K. Banerjee, Dinesh Diwedi Makarand D. Adkar, S. D.
Singh, Vijay Singh, Anurag Kishore, Vishwajit Singh, Shridhar Y. Chitale,
Ms. V.D. Khanna, Ravindra Adsure, Mukesh K. Giri, R.N. Karanjawala,
Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Pragya Bahgal, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Mrs. J.S.
Wad, Ashish Wad, Ms. Yugandhra Jha, Ritesh Agrawal and A.S. Pundir H
    210                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          RAJENDRA BABU, CJ. : Whether the impugned amendment to the
B Development Control Rules (OCR) sanctioned by the State Government
    of Maharashtra is in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra
    Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (the Act) is the matter for
    consideration herein.

C       The Act inter alia constituted Regional Development Authorities to
  streamline the development planning of Greater Bombay and Pune.
  Res"pective Corporations of Bombay and Pune were nominated as Regional
  Development Authorities under the Act. On 8-7-1993 the Maharashtra
  Government issued a directive under section 37 of the Act to Pune
  Municipal Corporation (PMC) to amend its OCR in the line of Bombay
D OCR. On 30-9-1993 PMC published the proposed amendments in the
  Official Gazette and invited objections/suggestions in accordance with
  section 37( I) of the Act. Subsequently the State Government sanctioned
  the proposed amendments. On 22-8-1995 the PMC submitted a proposal
  for modification of the OCR without any modification in the draft
E regulations. Thereafter, the State Government vide Notification dated 5-
  6-1997 under section 37(2) of the Act sanctioned the proposal of the
  modification and notified the modified OCR. It is pointed out that the
  proposal submitted by the PMC did not contain the words "very said pl0t"
  in the proposed amendment to Rule N 2.4.11. However, when the sanction
F was granted the State Government made certain additions to the Rules and
  the Rule N 2.4.11 contains the word "very said plot". The Floor Space
  Index (FSI) granted additionally under these rules was properly sanctioned
  by the PMC. Subsequently, the request to grant additional FSI was rejected
  by the PMC. This resulted in the present litigation. The Respondents herein
  challenges this amendment before the High Court on the ground that the
G additions made by the State Government while giving the final sanction
  is beyond the powers of the State Government under section 37(2) of the
  Act. The High Court allowed the petition on the reasoning that the language
  of section 37(2) nowhere allows the State Government to add conditions
  of its own or amendments of its own in the modifications submitted by the
H Planning Authority. It is also found that the State Government is bound
      PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPN. •.PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ASSON. [RAJENDRA BABU, CJ.] 211

      to hear the affected parties or those who suggested modification to the A
      proposals, before giving sanction. High Court also pointed out that on
      applying the principles of promissory estoppel the corporation couldn't be
      allowed to insist that the additional 0.4 FSI be used on the same very plot.
      This decision is impugned before us.

                                                                                     B
             The question now for consideration is whether the State Government
      can make any changes of its own in the modifications submitted by
      Planning Authority or not. The impugned section 37 of the Act reads as
      follows:

               "37(1) Where a modification of any part of or any proposal made C
               in, a final Development plan is of such a nature that it will not
               change the character of such Development plan, the Planning
               Authority may, or when so directed by the State Government
. '
               shall, within sixty days from the date of such direction, publish
               a notice in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as may D
               be determined by it inviting objections and suggestions from any
               person with respect to the proposed modification not later than
               one month from the date of such notice; and shall also serve notice
               on all persons affected by the proposed modification and after
               giving a hearing to any such persons, submit the proposed E
               modification with amendments, if any, to the State Government
               for sanction.

               (IA) ................................. .

               (!AA) ································                                F
               (18) ................................. .

               (2) The State Government may, make such inquiry as it may
               consider necessary and after consulting the Director of Town
               Planning by notification in the Official Gazette, sanction the G
               modification with or without such changes, and subject to such
               conditions as it may deem fit, or refuse to accord sanction. If a
               modification is sanctioned, the final Development plans shall be
               deemed to have been modified accordingly."
                                                            (emphasis supplied) H
    212                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A          Reading of this provision reveals that under clause (I), the Planning
   Authority after inviting objections and suggestions regarding the proposed
   amendment and after giving notice to all affected persons shall submit the
    proposed modification for sanction to the Government. The deliberation
    with the public before making the amendment is over at this stage. The
B Government, thereafter, under clause (2) is given absolute liberty to make
   or not to make necessary inquiry before granting sanction. Again, while
    according sanction, Government may do so with or without modifications.
    Government could impose such conditions as it deem fit. It is also
  . permissible for the Government to refuse the sanction. This is the true
C meaning of the clause (2). It is difficult to uphold the contrary interpretation
    given by the High Court. The main limitation for the Government is made
    under clause ( 1) that no authority can propose an amendment so as to
    change the basic character of the development plan. The proposed
    amendment could only be minor within the limits of the development plan.
    And for such minor changes it is only normal for the government to
D exercise a wide discretion, by keeping various relevant factors in mind.
    Again, if it is arbitrary or unreasonable the same could be challenged. It
    is not the case of the Respondents herein that the proposed change is
    arbitrary or unreasonable. They challenged the same citing the reason that
    the Government is not empowered under the Act to make such changes
E to the modification.
          Making of OCR or amendment thereof are legislative functions.
    Therefore, section 37 has to be viewed as repository of legislative powers
    for effecting amendments to OCR. That legislative power of amending
F   OCR is delegated to State Government. As we have already pointed out,
    the true interpretation of section 3 7(2) permits the State government to
    make necessary modifications or put conditions while granting sanction.
    In section 37(2), the legislature has not intended to provide for a public
    hearing before according sanction. The procedure for making such
    amendment is provided in section 37. Delegated legislation cannot be
G   questioned for violating principles of natural justice in its making except
    when the statute itself provides for that requirement. Where the legislature
    has not chosen to provide for any notice or hearing, no one can insist upon
    it and it is not permissible to read natural justice into such legislative
    activity. Moreover, a provision for 'such inquiry as it may consider
H   necessary' by a subordinate legislating body is generally an enabling
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPN. v. PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ASSON. [RAJENDRA BABU, CJ. J 213

provision to facilitate the subordinate legislating body to obtain relevant A
information from any source and it is not intended to vest any right in
anybody. (Union ofIndia and Anr. v. Cynamide India Ltd and Anr., [1987]
2 SCC 720 paragraphs 5 and 27. See generally HSSK Niyami and Anr. v.
Union of India and Anr., [1990] 4 SCC 516 and Canara Bank v. Debasis
Das, [2003] 4   sec    557). While exercising legislative functions, unless B
unreasonableness or arbitrariness is pointed out, it is not open for the Court
to interfere. (See generally ONGC v. Assn. of Natural Gas Consuming
Industries of Gujarat, [1990] Supp SCC 397) Therefore, the view adopted
by the High Court does not appear to be correct.

      The OCR are framed under section 158 of the Act. Rules framed C
under the provisions of a statute form part of the statute. (See General
Office Commanding-in-Chief and Anr. v. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav and
Anr., [ 1988] 2 SCC 351, paragraph 14). In other words, OCR have statutory
force. It is also a settled position of law that there could be no 'promissory
estoppel' against a statute. (A.P Pollution Control Board Ilv. M V Nayudu, D
[2001] 2 SCC 62, paragraph 69, Sales Tax Officer and Another v. Shree
Durga Oil Mills, (1998] I SCC 572, paragraphs 21 and 22 and Sharma
Transport v. Govt. of AP, (2002] 2 SCC 188, paragraphs 13 to 24).
Therefore, the High Court again went wrong by invoking the principle of
'promissory estoppel' to allow the petition filed by the Respondents herein. E

     For the foregoing reasons, the view adopted by the High Court cannot
be sustained.

     These appeals are allowed by setting aside the order of the High Court      F
and the writ petitions filed before the High Court are dismissed.

B.S.                                                        Appeals allowed.