2005 (5) TMI 688 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Regulation 58 under the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966.
2. Interim orders passed by the Bombay High Court.
3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and its maintainability.
4. Impact on mill owners, workers, financial institutions, and third parties.
5. Compliance with Development Control Regulations (DCR) and other statutory provisions.
6. Procedural aspects regarding the production of documents and hearing of parties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Regulation 58 under the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966:
The judgment discusses the historical context and amendments to Regulation 58, which governs the redevelopment of mill lands in Mumbai. Initially framed in 1991, Regulation 58 allowed for modernization and development of surplus mill lands but was found impractical as it did not yield significant land for public use or housing. Consequently, it was amended in 2001 to ensure coherent development and financial accountability, overseen by a Monitoring Committee. The 2001 amendment aimed to balance the interests of mill owners, workers, and public amenities.

2. Interim Orders Passed by the Bombay High Court:
The Bombay High Court issued interim orders restraining the Municipal Corporation from approving further layouts or issuing commencement certificates without its permission. The National Textile Corporation (NTC) was allowed to confirm the sale of Jupiter Mills subject to an undertaking to comply with future court orders. The Supreme Court noted that interim orders should consider prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable injury. The Court emphasized that ex parte injunctions should be granted only under exceptional circumstances and for a limited period.

3. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Its Maintainability:
The PIL filed questioned the validity of the 2001 amendment to Regulation 58. The Supreme Court highlighted that PILs should be entertained with caution, especially when challenging subordinate legislation. The Court stressed the need for the High Court to consider whether the writ petitioners had a prima facie case and whether they would suffer irreparable injury if interim relief was denied. The Court also underscored the importance of hearing all interested parties before passing interim orders.

4. Impact on Mill Owners, Workers, Financial Institutions, and Third Parties:
The appellants argued that significant investments had been made based on the 2001 Regulations, affecting mill owners, workers, financial institutions, and third-party purchasers. The Supreme Court acknowledged the potential hardships and financial implications of halting redevelopment projects. It allowed NTC to complete transactions under the BIFR scheme, subject to adjustments if the writ petition succeeded. The Court also permitted statutory authorities to process applications for redevelopment but required public notice and compliance with future court orders.

5. Compliance with Development Control Regulations (DCR) and Other Statutory Provisions:
The judgment emphasized strict compliance with DCR and other statutory provisions while granting redevelopment permissions. The Court directed that any new applications for layout approvals or commencement certificates should be processed in accordance with the law, but no construction should proceed without public notice and adherence to future court orders. The Court also mandated that any agreements for creating third-party rights must include a stipulation regarding compliance with court orders.

6. Procedural Aspects Regarding the Production of Documents and Hearing of Parties:
The Supreme Court addressed the procedural aspect of document production, noting the hardship faced by the State and Municipal Corporation in complying with the High Court's extensive document requests. The Court directed that all relevant documents be placed before the High Court, with the possibility of adverse inferences if documents were withheld. The Court also facilitated the filing of affidavits by interveners and requested the High Court to expedite the hearing of the writ petition.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court balanced the interests of various stakeholders while addressing the validity of Regulation 58 and the interim orders passed by the Bombay High Court. It underscored the principles governing the grant of interim relief in PILs and emphasized strict compliance with statutory regulations. The Court allowed ongoing transactions under the BIFR scheme to proceed, subject to future adjustments, and directed procedural fairness in the production of documents and hearing of parties.