DEVJIBHAI B. CHUDASAMA v. STATE — 1988 DIGILAW 120 (GUJ)

P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) NOTICE was issued as early as on 18/02/1988 and in response we have heard the arguments of all these Counsels appearing for the respective parties and read the affidavits filed by the parties. ( 2 ) THIS Special Civil Application is to quash and set aside the notification issued by respondent No. 1 dated 16-1-1988 which is Annexure F to the Special Civil Application. The said notification was issued in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Area Development Authority Veraval-Patan Joint Municipality and the new Town Planning Committee. The modification inter alia states that Veraval-Patan Samyuktha Nagar Palika has prepared a draft revised development plan under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act 1976 and advertised the said revised development plan and called objections and suggestions on the proposed draft revised development plan by publishing the same in Part II of the Gujarat Government Gazette dated 12/09/1985 It further states that the Government of Gujarat had considered it necessary to make modifications in the said draft revised development plan of Veraval-Patan submitted by the Veraval-Patan Area Development Authority to the State Government for sanction under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act 1976 and that in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to sub-clause (ii) of clause (e) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act 1976 Government of Gujarat had published the said modifications under Government notifications Urban Development and Urban Housing Department No. GH/v/124 of 1987/dvp-1986-71 (87) dated 16/05/1987 in the Gujarat Government Gazette Part IV-B dated 18/06/1987 calling upon any person to submit suggestions or objections if any with respect to the proposed modifications to the Secretary to the Government of Gujarat Urban Development and Urban Housing Department Sachivalaya Gandhinagar in writing within a period of two months from the date of publication of the said Government notification dated 16/05/1987 The notification further states that the Government of Gujarat has taken into consideration the suggestions and objections received by it in respect of the said modifications and in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 17 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act 1976 the Government of Gujarat had finalised the said modification and sanctioned the said revised development plan and the regulations thereto subject to the modifications so finalised and as set out in the schedule appended thereto. The notification further stated that the 20/02/1988 as the date on which the final revised development plan shall come into force. The said notification has appended the schedule as regards the sanctioned revised development plan. This notification is questioned on various grounds. ( 3 ) IT is stated that revised development plan submitted by the Committee instead of the Municipality submitting such plan cannot be acted upon. It is further submitted that the revised development plan is not approved or sanctioned within the period specified under Sec. 9 and as such it cannot come into operation. Reading the Annexure A which is Resolution No. 83 of the Town Planning Committee it is submitted that the delegation of the power to the President of the Veraval-Patan Municipality to send the draft development plan is beyond the scope of the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning Act and as such any development plan so sent cannot be acted upon. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the revised development plan was not submitted within the period prescribed and as such it cannot be acted upon. Mr. Ajmera learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that though revision for development plan has to be made once in 10 years from the date on which the final development plan comes into force to make a revision beyond 10 years period cannot be acted upon unless extension of time is taken from the Government. Mr. Ajmera also submitted that the Municipal Council has withdrawn the draft revised development plan by its Resolution dated 22-8-1986 which is Annexure G to the Special Civil Application and as such the revised development plan now in question cannot be acted upon. Finally the learned Counsel submitted that as per Rule 7 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules 1979 the revised development plan has not been approved within the prescribed time and as such the same will not come into effect. Finally the learned Counsel submitted that as per Rule 7 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules 1979 the revised development plan has not been approved within the prescribed time and as such the same will not come into effect. ( 4 ) AS regards the first objection it is no doubt true that the Town Planning Committee has submitted the draft revised development plan Section 6 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act 1976 reads as follows:"6 (1) The State Government may instead of constituting an area development authority for a development area designate any local authority functioning in a development area of part thereof as the area development authority for that development area. (2) The local authority designated under sub-sec. (2) as the Area Development Authority shall for the purposes of performing the functions assigned to an area development authority under this Act set up a Planning Committee consisting of the following members namely: (I) Six members of the local authority appointed by it out of whom one shall be designated as the Chairman. (II) the Chief Town Planner or his representative to be nominated by the State Government. (3) The Planning Committee set up under sub-sec. (2) shall have all the powers responsibilities and status as are given to a Standing Committee if any appointed under the Act under which the local authority is constituted. "reading the whole section it is clear that the State Government may designate any local authority functioning in a development area or part thereof as the Area Development Authority for that development area. From Sec. 6 it is clear that the local authority designated under sub-sec. (1) as the area development authority for the purpose of performing the functions assigned to an Area Development Authority under this Act can set up a Planning Committee consisting of the members mentioned in that section. Sub-sec. (iii) of Sec. 3 clearly states that the Planning Committee set up under Sec. 2 shall have all the powers responsibilities and status as given to a Standing Committee if any appointed under the Act under which the authority is constituted. Section 7 deals with the power and functions of Area Development Authority. Sub-sec. (iii) of Sec. 3 clearly states that the Planning Committee set up under Sec. 2 shall have all the powers responsibilities and status as given to a Standing Committee if any appointed under the Act under which the authority is constituted. Section 7 deals with the power and functions of Area Development Authority. No doubt the Government has issued a circular dated 9/08/1986 instructing the local bodies which are designated as Area Development Authorities to see that proposals regarding developmental plan and variations in the Town Planning Scheme are forwarded to the Government only after obtaining sanction of the local bodies. In view of this circular and Sec. 6 (1) Mr. Ajmera learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the revised development plan which was sent by the Planning Committee constituted by the Area Development Authority cannot do so since the draft revised development plan is without the approval of the Area Development Authority which is the Municipality in this case. Sections 6 (2) and (3) are clear to the effect that all the powers that can be exercised by the Municipality as the Area Development Authority can be exercised by the Planning Committee appointed by the Municipality. Reading Sec. 6 (2) and Sec. 7 it is clear that the statute itself authorises and requires the local authority to set up the Planning Committee for the purpose of performing the functions assigned to an Area Development Authority. Thus the functions that has to be exercised under Sec. 7 of the Act can be exercised by the Planning Committee and such a statutory power given to discharge certain duties to the Planning Committee are taken away by the circular referred by Mr. Ajmera. Further Sec. 6 of the Gujarat Town Planing and Urban Development Act clearly states that the Planning Committee appointed shall have all the powers responsibilities and status as are given to a Standing Committee if any appointed under the Act under which the local authority is constituted. In respect of the Municipality we do not have the provision for appointment of a Standing Committee in the Gujarat Municipalities Act but Sec. 53 of the Act visualises the establishment of an Executive Committee consisting of such number of Councillors mentioned therein. The limitations for that Executive Committee is only that prescribed by the Rules framed under clause (a) of Sec. 271 and by the provisions of Secs. The limitations for that Executive Committee is only that prescribed by the Rules framed under clause (a) of Sec. 271 and by the provisions of Secs. 49 54 and 55. this Executive Committee is akin to the Standing Committee that will be constituted in the local bodies such as Corporation. Reading the provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act it is clear that the Executive Committee appointed will have full powers in respect of discharging its functions assigned to the said Executive Committee. Even with regard to the Constitution of Planning Committee we not only find the members of the local authority as the Planning Committee Members but also the Chief Town Planner or his representative to be nominated by the State Government. Thus once a Committee is constituted it has independent status and gets all the powers to discharge its functions which the designated local authority is empowered to discharge. Further it is the stand of the Government that having regard to the scheme and scope of the Town Planning Committee constituted under Sec. G (2) of the said Act it is statutorily not necessary to get approval of the General Body of the respondent-Municipality before forwarding the proposals for development even to the Government. A moot question that arose in this case is as to whether the local authority which in turn has delegated its power as regards to the development plan to the Planning Committee has power to recall the power granted or give suggestions or modifications as to how the development plan has to be submitted to the Government. We leave the question open since in this case the local authority has not given any suggestions or recalled the power granted to the Planning Committee before the Planning committee submitted its draft revised development plan to the State Government. Therefore on facts of this case the Planning Committee had all the powers to discharge the functions of the Area Development Authority. ( 5 ) FOR all these reasons there is no substance in the argument that the draft revised development plan sent by the Planning Committee without getting the prior sanction or approval of the Area Development Authority cannot be acted upon. ( 6 ) MR. ( 5 ) FOR all these reasons there is no substance in the argument that the draft revised development plan sent by the Planning Committee without getting the prior sanction or approval of the Area Development Authority cannot be acted upon. ( 6 ) MR. Ajmera the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner after reading Sec. 9 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act 1976 contended that in this case the Area Development Authority has Not submitted its draft development plan within 3 years after the declaration of the area as the development area and that the State Government has also not extended the time within which the development authority has to submit its development plan and hence the plan submitted as late as 1988 cannot be acted upon. Sections 9 (1) and (2) of the Act reads as follows:"9 (1) As soon as may be after the constitution of an Area Development Authority for any development area under Sec. s the Area Development Authority shall not later than three years after the declaration of such area as a development area or within such time as the State Government may from time to time extend prepare and submit to the state Government a draft development plan for the whole or any part for the development area in accordance with the provisions of this oct. (2) If a draft development plan is not prepared and submitted to the State Government by any area development authority within the period specified in sub-sec. (1) or within the period extended under that sub-section an officer appointed by the State Government in this behalf may prepare and submit to the State Government in the prescribed manner a draft development plan and recover the cost thereof from such Area development Authority out of its funds. ( 7 ) AS far as the facts of this case are concerned under the preceding legislation (Bombay Town Planning Act) the area in question was declared as development area and its development plan was approved by the Government as early as 20-9-1973. After the plan was approved by the Government the development plan came into force on 5-11-1973. In this Municipality an Administrator was appointed as early as 1983 after superseding the Municipality and he continue to 31-3-1985. On 12-12-1983 a resolution to revise the development plan approved as early as 5-11-1973 was passed by the administrator. After the plan was approved by the Government the development plan came into force on 5-11-1973. In this Municipality an Administrator was appointed as early as 1983 after superseding the Municipality and he continue to 31-3-1985. On 12-12-1983 a resolution to revise the development plan approved as early as 5-11-1973 was passed by the administrator. Subsequent to the constitution of Veraval-Patan Municipality the declaration under Secs. 3 and 6 constituting the Veraval-Patan Municipality as Area Development Authority was made on 30-1-1978 on 30 Veraval-Patan Municipality which is the Area Development Authority constituted the Town Planning Committee under Sec. 6 (2) of the Act. On 21-8-1985 Resolution No. 83 was passed by the Town Planning Committee authorising the President of the Municipality to send the revised development plan to the Government. On 12-9-1985 the Town Planning Committee constituted by the Municipality published a Gazette Notification calling for objections to the draft revised development plan. On 12-11-1985 it also published the said draft development plan calling for objections in the newspaper Jai Hind. On 9-3-1986 the Town Planning Committee submitted the revised draft development plan with objections to the Government under Sec. 16. After about five months on 7-8-1986 the General Board of the Municipality as well as the Town Planning Committee passed resolutions purporting to withdraw and cancel the draft revised plan sent to the Government. On 16-5-1987 the State Government proposed draft modification in the draft revised plan inviting objections and the same was gazetted on 16-5-1987. On 16 the Government approved the draft revised development plan with modifications. In the meanwhile two writ petitions came to be filed and disposed of regarding the development plan with which we think is not necessary for us to consider as at present. The present Special Civil Application was filed on 18-2-1988. ( 8 ) FROM the above narration of the relevant dates it is clear that the Town Planning Committee called for objections to the draft revised development plan by putting it in the Gazette on 12-9-1985. Even prior to that a resolution was passed by the Municipality on 12-12-1983 stating that the development plan is to be revised. The original development plan was made as early as 5-11-1973. As per Sec. 21 of the Act the revision of the development plan has to be made at least once in 10 years. Even prior to that a resolution was passed by the Municipality on 12-12-1983 stating that the development plan is to be revised. The original development plan was made as early as 5-11-1973. As per Sec. 21 of the Act the revision of the development plan has to be made at least once in 10 years. Section 21 reads as follows:"at least once in ten years from the date on which a final development plan comes into force the Area Development Authority shall revise the development plan after carrying out if necessary a fresh survey and the provisions of Secs. 9 to 20 shall so far as may be apply to such revision. "thus it is clear the present revised development plan is in pursuance of the power given under Sec. 21 and not under Sec. 9. ( 9 ) INASMUCH as the plan submitted is a draft revised development plan the contention of Mr. Ajmera that it is not within the period prescribed under Sec. 9 has no leg to stand. Hence this contention also fails. ( 10 ) THE next contention advanced by Mr. Ajmera is the Resolution No. 83 dated 21-8-1985 by which the power to prepare the revised development plan has been given to the President of the Veraval-Patan Municipality and as such the revised plan sent by the President cannot be acted upon. According to the learned Counsel it is the Town Planning Committee which has the right and power to prepare the revised development plan and not the President of the Veraval-Patan Municipality. Reading the Resolution No. 83 which is Annexure A to the Special Civil Application it is clear that the President of the Veraval-Patan Municipality was only authorised to send the draft development plan under Sec. 9 of the Act which is prepared by the office of the town Planning and Valuation Department of the Junagadh Branch to the State Government and approved by the Committee. There is a further direction in the resolution that such revised plan if approved the President is authorised to publish the same under Sec. 13. Such a resolution in our opinion cannot be termed as delegating the power of preparing the revised development plan in the hands of the President of the Veraval-Patan Municipality. Hence this contention of Mr. Ajmera also fails. ( 11 ) AS a fourth contention Mr. Such a resolution in our opinion cannot be termed as delegating the power of preparing the revised development plan in the hands of the President of the Veraval-Patan Municipality. Hence this contention of Mr. Ajmera also fails. ( 11 ) AS a fourth contention Mr. Ajmera submitted that there is a delay in submitting the revised development plan. As per Sec. 9 it is clear that as soon as the Area Development Authority for any development area is constituted under Sec. 5 it has to prepare and submit to the State Government a draft development plan within 3 years after the declaration of such area as the development area of within such time is the State Government may from time to the extend. Section 9 (2) of the Act clearly states that if a draft development is not submitted to the State Government by any Area Development Authority within the period specified in sub-sec. (1) or within the period extended under that sub-section a officer appointed by the State Government in this behalf may prepare and submit to the State Government in the prescribed manner a draft development plan and recover the cost thereof from such Area Development Authority out of its funds. In the first place the development plan was not submitted by the Area Development Authority constituted under Sec. 5. In this case the Area Development Authority in the local authority functioning in the development area as provided under Sec. 6 (1) of the Act. The said development authority designated as per Sec. 6 (2) assigned its authority for performing the functions to the Planning Committee set up for that purpose. Hence Sec. 9 cannot have any application nor the limitations prescribed therein is applicable to the draft revised plan The present development plan is not the one sent for the first time. It is a revised development plan which as provided under Sec. 21 has to be sent at least once in 10 years. Hence the question of limitation will not arise in this case. Thus the fourth submission made by Mr. Ajmera also fails. ( 12 ) THE further contention of Mr. Ajmera is that as per Sec. 21 of the Act the revised development plan ought to have been submitted within 10 years period from the date on which the final development plan come into force. Thus the fourth submission made by Mr. Ajmera also fails. ( 12 ) THE further contention of Mr. Ajmera is that as per Sec. 21 of the Act the revised development plan ought to have been submitted within 10 years period from the date on which the final development plan come into force. The original development plan was in force from 5 The Veraval-Patan Development Authority by its Resolution No. 253 dated 12-12-1983 has resolved to revise the said plan. The said revised plan got the approval of the Planning Committee only on 21 and the same was submitted to the Government on 2-9-1985. It is argued that since in this case the draft revised development plan was submitted beyond the period of 10 years from the date on which the original final development plan came into force the revised development plan cannot have any effect. Such an argument cannot be countenanced when especially neither the objects and reasons of such an Act nor Sec. 21 which are all intend to develop an area visualises such a narrow construction. Section 21 starts by stating that At least once in 10 years and this does not spell out that the revised development plan must be exactly within the date of 10th year. There is no prohibition against revision of the development plan after 10 years. Further the very fact that the State Government entertained the draft revised plan and took action on the same establishes that the State Government has accepted the revision of the development plan. Hence we do not find any substance in the said argument of Mr. Ajmera. ( 13 ) MR. Ajmera pointing out the Resolution dated 22-8-1986 whereby the Municipality has quashed the Resolution No. 83 dated 21 and Resolution Nos. 160 and 161 dated 7-3-1986 contended that the original development plan alone is in existence and not the revised development plan sent by the Town Planning Committee It is seen from the facts of the case that much earlier to the resolution referred the draft revised development plan has been sent to the Government by the validly constituted authority under the Act. Ultimately the draft revised development plan was considered and the impugned notification was issued by the Government on 16-1-1988. Hence the resolution in question will not affect its validity since it has been performed by a validity constituted authority. Ultimately the draft revised development plan was considered and the impugned notification was issued by the Government on 16-1-1988. Hence the resolution in question will not affect its validity since it has been performed by a validity constituted authority. Section 124 of the GUJarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act clearly says that such actions taken by the Committee which has been validly constituted is saved. It is contended that draft revised development plan sent by the Town Planning Committee has been withdrawn. From the facts it is seen that such a withdrawal was subsequent to the Town Planning Committee sending its revised development plan with objections to the Government under Sec. 16 of the Act. It is sought to be argued that under Sec. 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act the authority which issued the order has the power to withdraw. We are not able to accept this argument. Under Sec. 6 (2) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act the Town Planning Committee is constituted for performing the functions assigned to the Area Development Authority. Once that duty cast upon the Town Planning Committee is carried out and the draft revised development plan has been sent to the Government the Committee as such cannot have any power either to rescind cancel of call back such draft revised plan sent to the Government. It is for the Government to act upon the draft revised development plan and take such necessary steps to finalise the same either with modification or without the same or to reject the same. The statutory procedure is set up for the State Government to act subsequent to the date the State Government receives the draft revised development plan. Hence the Town Planning Committee which has been constituted for performing certain duty becomes functus officio after it discharges its duty and after sending the draft revised development plan to the State Government. In this case much earlier to the passing of the resolution in question the Town Planning Committee has sent the draft revised plan to the Government. Hence the resolution pressed into service as if the Municipality and the Town Planning Committee has cancelled the draft revised plan sent to the Government cannot have any effect. ( 14 ) FINALLY Mr. In this case much earlier to the passing of the resolution in question the Town Planning Committee has sent the draft revised plan to the Government. Hence the resolution pressed into service as if the Municipality and the Town Planning Committee has cancelled the draft revised plan sent to the Government cannot have any effect. ( 14 ) FINALLY Mr. Ajmera brought to his support Rule 7 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Rules 1979 Rule 7 reads as follows:"7. Period within which the draft development plan and the regulations shall be sanctioned under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 17. the State Government may sanction the draft development plan and the regulations submitted to it under Sec. 16 within a period of 12 months from the date of receipt by the State Government if no modification is proposed (2) If any modification in the draft development plan or the regulations submitted to the State Government under Sec. 16 are considered necessary by the State Government then the State Government may sanction the draft development plan and the regulations with modifications within a period of twenty four month from the date of receipt by the State Government "in this case the Town Planning Committee submitted the revised development plan to the Government on 9-3-1986. On 16-5-1987 the Government proposed modifications in the draft revised plan and published the same in the Gazette. After calling for objections and suggestions the Government approved the revised development plan with modifications on 16-1-1988. It is clear from the dates given above that the Government has approved the revised development plan after a period of about one year and 10 months. It is only on 16-5-1987 the Government proposed the draft development plan with modification. Thus the modification was proposed by the Government after a lapse of 12 months. Mr. Ajmera states if the Government wants to propose any modification to the draft development plan and to the regulations submitted to it by the Town Planning Committee it ought to have done so within a period of 12 months as envisaged in Rule 7 (1) and inasmuch as it has proposed the modification after a period of 12 months the sanctioning or the plan on 16-1-1988 is vitiated due to the fact that it is published beyond the period of limitation As per Rule ? (2) the sanction of the draft development plan can be made by the Government within a period of 24 months from the date of receipt. by the State Government if the State Government considers necessary to modify the draft development plan or the regulations submitted to it. First of all Rule 7 deals with sanction of the draft development plan by the State. Such a sanction has to be accorded within a period of 12 months from the date of receipt by the State Government if no modification is purposed. If the State Government thinks it fit to propose modification in the draft development plan submitted to it by the Town Planning Committee it can propose such medication and in that case the period within which it has to sanction the draft development plan and the regulation with modification is 24 months from the date of receipt of the revised draft development plan from the Town Planning Committee. There is nothing in the Rule to spell out that the modification must be proposed within 12 months. We further see that there is absolutely no consequence provided in Rule 7 if the sanction is not accorded within a specified period. If that be so the provision under Rule 7 cannot also be considered as mandatory. The Town Planning and Urban Development Act is intended for the developmental activities and improvement in the Town Planning. To restrict the proposal for such developmental planning activities it will go against the subject and aim for which such legislation has been passed. We are not able to agree with the contention of Mr. Ajmera that if the State Government fails to spell out its intention to modify the draft development plan and the regulations submitted to it within a period of 12 months as envisaged in Rule 7 (1) sanction for the draft development plan after the period of 12 months in void. In this case the accorded accorded is in respect of a revised development plan which has to be made as per Sec. 21 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act. The Notification which is impugned clearly states that this is not a case when where the State Government sanctioned the approved development plan as it was sent the State Government sanctioned it with its own modification. The Notification which is impugned clearly states that this is not a case when where the State Government sanctioned the approved development plan as it was sent the State Government sanctioned it with its own modification. The State Government exercised its power under Sec. 17 of the Act called for suggestions and objections by publishing the modifications in the draft revised development plan in the Gazette gave two months time from the date of publication to get suggestions and objections and then only revised development plan with modifications was published. Hence in our opinion Rule 7 will not in any way affect the validity of the notification on the facts and circumstance of this case. Even apart from this fact a Bench of this High Court had occasion to consider Rule 7 in the case of Kikabhai v. State reported in 1988 (1) GLR 569 . In that case a Bench of this High Court observed that in cases the State decides to introduce substantial modifications in the proposed development plan suo motu the requirement of finishing such exercise within a fixed time limit is not found anywhere in the said section. The Court further observed that it is also interesting to note that even Rule 7 itself provides for a period within which a draft development plan and the regulation shall be sanctioned under sub-clause (3) of clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 17 and that it has nothing to do with sanctioning of the plan after substantial modification proposed by the State For such sanction according to the Bench no period is prescribed and Rule 7 does not cover such contingency. (1) of Sec. 17 and that it has nothing to do with sanctioning of the plan after substantial modification proposed by the State For such sanction according to the Bench no period is prescribed and Rule 7 does not cover such contingency. Continuing further the Bench observed (at page 577 of GLR):"as a result of the aforesaid discussion the following situations emerge: (1) If the State chooses to sanction the draft development plan and regulations received by it under Sec. 16 from the competent authority without any modification the prescribed period during which such exercise has to be done is 12 months from the receipt of the plan and regulations as laid down by Rule 7 (1) of the Rules - (2) If the State Government having received such draft development plan and regulations with objections and suggestions as per Sec. 16 (1) read with Sec. It (2) considers it proper to grant certain modifications in the draft development plan which were not granted earlier by the alia development authority and when such modifications are to be made in the light of the objections and suggestions already received by the area development authority then the said modification s can be made within a further period of 12 months totalling in all 24 months of the receipt of the development plan and regulations as laid down by Rule 7 (2) of the Rules; (3 ). If the State Government thinks it proper to return the said plan and regulations to the authority for modifying the plan and regulations then it can 50 return the said draft development plan once the plan is returned the authority has to deal wish returned plan as laid down by Sec. 17 (2) of the Act and then resubmit the draft to the State Government for sanction. If that happens the State Government can sanction the same after due modification is carried out by the Area Development Authority as per Sec. 17 (1) (b) for which there is no period prescribed; (4) Instead of returning the plan the State may exercise powers under the proviso to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 17 (1) (a) and may then invite objections from the public if modifications are substantial in nature. The said provision clearly indicates that there must be such substantial modifications which the State suo motu thinks it proper to carry out in the plan. (2) of Sec. 17 (1) (a) and may then invite objections from the public if modifications are substantial in nature. The said provision clearly indicates that there must be such substantial modifications which the State suo motu thinks it proper to carry out in the plan. For such proposed modifications the members of public had earlier no opportunity of objecting and that is the reason why they are to be published by the State Government for the first time. Once that happens the State Government can sanction the development plan with substantial modifications as proposed by it as per Sec. 17 (1) (c) of the Act for which also there is no period of limitation; (5) Lastly the State Government may refuse to accord sanction to the draft development plan and regulations and direct the area development authority or authorised officer to prepare fresh development plan under the provisions of the Act. Out of the aforesaid five situations the question of sanctioning draft development plan and regulations within the prescribed period becomes relevant only in the first two cases. For the rest of the cases there is no period prescribed by the Legislature for sanctioning such plan and regulations with modifications. "as the present case falls within the fourth category of cases it is obvious that Rule 7 is totally out of picture and therefore it must be held that for sanctioning this plan after inviting objections from the members of public by the State Government itself when such modifications are proposed suo motu by the State there is no time limit within which such exercise can be finalised and sanction can be accorded by the State to the plan with or without such substantial modifications suo motu proposed by it. ( 15 ) IN this decision the Court has further observed (at page 579 of GLR):"but even otherwise with respect it is difficult prima facie to agree with the reasoning of the learned single Judge that the plan would automatically lapse if it is not sanctioned within the prescribed time or that the period prescribed under Rule 7 (1) (2) is of such a mandatory nature that any infraction thereof even by a day or an hour would have such nullifying consequences. However it is rot necessary for us to decide this question as on the facts of the present case as be have already shown earlier the case falls within category (3) for which there is no period of limitation at all prescribed under the Act or the Rules and therefore there remains no occasion for considering this wider question. as a result of the aforesaid discussion the first contention is found to be devoid of any substance and has to be rejected. " ( 16 ) THE abovesaid decision has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition No. 1372 of 1988 on 5/05/1988. ( 17 ) THE abovesaid facts of the case and the principle laid down will apply to the facts of the present case also. ( 18 ) IN view of the above mentioned decision and on the facts of this case we do not think that the revised development plan sanctioned by the Government on 16-1-1988 is any way vitiated on any of the grounds Hence the petition fails and is dismissed Notice discharged. Interim relief vacated. ( 19 ) AFTER the judgment was pronounced Mr. Ajmera requested for continuing the interim relief already granted for a period of 8 weeks in order to enable his clients to take the matter to the Supreme Court. Inasmuch as interim relief has been already granted and it is continuing the said interim relief is continued for a further period of six weeks from today. Rule discharged. .