Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge concerning transferable development rights and increased floor-space use in Mumbai’s slum-rehabilitation scheme. The High Court had examined the planning framework and issued directions addressing amenities and complaints. No patent illegality or constitutional contravention warranting further interference was shown. An individual’s preferred planning policy could not be imposed on elected bodies by mandamus.
Issues
- Whether further judicial interference with Mumbai’s development-rights policy was justified after the High Court’s detailed examination and remedial directions.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(9A), Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966The definition of development right, including transferable development rights, supplied the context for the planning policy under challenge. (¶¶ 2, 3)
Held
- The High Court had undertaken detailed scrutiny of the development-control framework and issued directions concerning revenue for amenities, a ward-level complaint mechanism and preparation of the development plan. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Local development and zoning issues ordinarily called for attention by the High Court, which was equipped to consider local conditions. No patent illegality or contravention of the constitutional mandate justifying further interference was made out. (¶ 11)
- Separation of powers left policy formulation to the competent elected bodies. The appellant’s preferred approach could not be converted into mandatory government policy through mandamus absent a constitutional infirmity. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The High Court had already issued feasible directions after examining the issues in detail; the Supreme Court considered no further directions necessary. (¶ 14)
Result
Appeal dismissed; parties to bear their own costs. No further directions beyond those issued by the High Court.