You Can’t Cling to One Officer When the State Has the Power to Move On: Bombay High Court Rejects Plea to Scrap Draft Development Plan for Aurangabad

“When the Planning Authority fails, the law empowers specific officials to step in — but if the State steps in under its own powers, that doesn’t mean it must blindly follow the earlier script.” - In a significant urban planning verdict, the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad Bench dismissed a clutch of writ petitions and a public interest litigation challenging the appointment of a new officer to finalise the Draft Development Plan (DDP) for Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad) and upheld the legality of the draft published on March 7, 2024. 
 
Whether the State Government could override Section 21(4A) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), and appoint an officer of its own choosing — instead of allowing a Deputy Director or Joint Director of Town Planning to complete the work. 
The petitioners — including senior citizens, activists, and residents — argued that the State had violated a 2016 High Court ruling by bypassing the officer originally involved in the plan (Respondent No. 4), and instead appointing a different officer (Respondent No. 6) under Section 162, allegedly at the behest of political interests. 
But the Division Bench of Justice Mangesh S. Patil and Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar dismissed these challenges, observing:  “The power under Section 162 is distinct. Once the State Government decides that the Planning Authority has failed in its duty, it can take over. You cannot insist that only a particular officer must carry forward the work.” 

“The Petitioners Can’t Preach Clean Governance While Secretly Relying on Sealed Documents — Their Conduct Shows They’re Not Coming With Clean Hands”  
The Court pointedly criticized the petitioners for presenting photo copies of sealed documents — especially the original draft allegedly prepared by Respondent No. 4 — which was never made public. 
“If Respondent No. 4’s draft was never published, and is sealed in this Court, how did the petitioners get access to detailed contents and use them to allege manipulation in the new draft?” 
 
The Court said this conduct raised doubts about the petitioners’ impartiality, suggesting collusion with the officer whose draft they were defending. 
“Yes, the State Was Bound by the 2016 Mandate — But Supervening Events and Statutory Powers Have Changed the Ground” 
 
While reaffirming that the 2016 High Court decision had declared the planning authority as having “failed,” thereby triggering Section 21(4A), the Court held that supervening circumstances — including the State’s invocation of Section 154 and 162, and the Supreme Court’s acknowledgment of those communications — altered the framework. 
“The use of the word ‘concerned officer’ in Section 21(4A) cannot be stretched to lock the State into a single officer’s appointment, especially when broader urban development strategy and continuity are at stake.” 
“The Power Under Section 162 Is Not Decorative — It’s Designed to Save Development When Local Authorities Fail” 
The State Government, the Court held, was within its rights to invoke Section 162 to ensure completion of the DDP for both the original and extended areas of the city, and the move did not violate the mandate of Section 21(4A). 
“Planning is a dynamic process. If the original officer was transferred or if State policy evolved to combine plans, it does not invalidate the authority of the person now completing the work.” 
“You Can Challenge the Final Plan If You’re Aggrieved — But You Can’t Derail It Now Based on Who Signed the Draft” 
In the end, the Court ruled that whether there were substantial changes made in the new draft plan (published on March 7, 2024) would be a matter for the State Government to consider under Section 28(4), and not for premature judicial interference. 
“Any substantial modifications will have to go through statutory notification under Section 31. If someone is aggrieved at that stage, they can challenge it. But the present challenge is speculative.” 
“Planning Cannot Be Paralyzed Over Turf Battles — The Court Will Not Act as Supervisor of Officers or Arbiter of Bureaucratic Politics.” 
With these strong remarks, the Court dismissed Writ Petition Nos. 7515/2024, 12190/2023, 15392/2023, 15422/2023, and PIL No. 4/2024, holding that no illegality had been committed by the State Government in appointing Respondent No. 6 to complete the DDP under Sections 154 and 162 of the MRTP Act. 
 

Date of Decision: April 8, 2025