2006 (3) TMI 326 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of Development Control Regulation No. 58 (DCR 58) framed by the State of Maharashtra in terms of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 questioned. Held that - Appeal allowed. The Public Interest Litigation was maintainable. DCR 58 is valid in law. DCR 58(1) applies also to closed mills but sub-regulation (6) of DCR 58 does not apply to sick industries which have not been referred to BIFR. The clarification made by the State is neither ultra vires section 37 of the MRTP Act nor is violative of the constitutional provisions. DCR 58, as inserted in 2001 and as clarified in 2003, is not contrary to the principles governing environmental aspects including the principles of sustainable and planned development vis-a-vis Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Judicial review of DCR 58 was permissible in law. Sale of NTC mills was not contrary to the BIFR Scheme as also the orders passed by this Court. Although, delay and laches play an important role, as we have considered the merit of the matter, the writ petition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is not being dismissed on that ground alone. It is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether worker s dues have been paid and also as to whether the committee had been applying the fund in terms of DCR 58 or not. However, all such contentions shall remain open.

Issues Involved:
1. Synthesis between environmental aspects and building regulation vis-a-vis the scheme floated by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR).
2. Validity of Development Control Regulation No. 58 (DCR 58).
3. Validity of sales of mills by National Textile Corporation (NTC).
4. Constitutionality of DCR 58 concerning Articles 14, 21, and 48-A of the Constitution of India.
5. Delay and laches in filing the writ petition.
6. Conflicting stand of workmen.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Synthesis between Environmental Aspects and Building Regulation vis-a-vis BIFR Scheme:
The core question was whether a synthesis between environmental aspects and building regulation vis-a-vis the BIFR scheme in terms of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) is possible. The court examined this by considering the goals of environmental protection, town planning, and the revival of sick industries under the BIFR scheme.

2. Validity of Development Control Regulation No. 58 (DCR 58):
- Background: DCR 58 was framed by the State of Maharashtra under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, to address the closure and unviability of various cotton textile mills.
- High Court Judgment: The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that DCR 58 should be construed to ensure open spaces and public housing, and that the sales by NTC were contrary to the BIFR scheme and Supreme Court orders.
- Supreme Court Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of DCR 58, stating that it applies to both sick and closed mills but clarified that sub-regulation (6) does not apply to sick industries not referred to BIFR. The court emphasized the need for a purposive interpretation to balance development and environmental protection.

3. Validity of Sales of Mills by National Textile Corporation (NTC):
- High Court Judgment: The High Court held that the sales of mill lands by NTC were contrary to the BIFR scheme and Supreme Court orders.
- Supreme Court Judgment: The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the sales were not contrary to the BIFR scheme or Supreme Court orders. It noted that the BIFR scheme did not mandate that the land for public purposes must come from the same mill and recognized the integrated development scheme approved by MCGM.

4. Constitutionality of DCR 58:
- High Court Judgment: The High Court did not declare DCR 58 unconstitutional but read it down to ensure it complied with Articles 14, 21, and 48-A of the Constitution.
- Supreme Court Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of DCR 58, stating that it was neither ultra vires Section 37 of the MRTP Act nor violative of the constitutional provisions. The court emphasized that DCR 58 was a self-contained code that balanced environmental and developmental needs.

5. Delay and Laches:
- High Court Judgment: The High Court did not dismiss the writ petition on the grounds of delay and laches, considering the enormity of the issues involved.
- Supreme Court Judgment: The Supreme Court acknowledged serious delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioners but did not dismiss the writ petition solely on this ground. It considered the merits of the case while recognizing the significant financial and developmental activities already undertaken based on the existing regulations.

6. Conflicting Stand of Workmen:
- RMMS: Supported the mill owners, emphasizing the benefits of VRS schemes and payments made to workers.
- GKSS: Sided with the writ petitioners, arguing that workers' dues were not fully paid and that the revival schemes were not effectively implemented.
- Supreme Court Judgment: The court did not delve into the conflicting stands of the workmen in detail, noting that the issues concerning workers' dues and the application of funds under the regulations were not central to the case at hand.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court. It upheld the validity and constitutionality of DCR 58, recognized the legality of the sales of mill lands by NTC, and acknowledged the delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioners. The court emphasized the need for a balanced approach to development and environmental protection, ensuring that the legislative intent behind DCR 58 was fulfilled.

← Previous Next →