JUDGMENT - SHAH A.P., J.:---By this petition under article 226 the municipal council of Sirur seeks to challenge the allotment of the land comprised in reserved site No. 57 in the development plan by the State Government to respondent No. 2 Shri Ramalinga Co-operative Industrial Vasahat, Society. 2. The petitioner municipal council is established as per the provisions of section 8 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965. In 1979 the petitioner published a draft development plan for the municipal area of Sirur in accordance with section 33 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 ('the Act', for short). Under the draft plan site No. 57 is reserved for municipal industrial estate. The area of the said site in hectare is 7.94. This site consists of two lands which are revenue survey Nos. 1130 and 47. The draft development plan was submitted to the State Government for its sanction along with report prepared by the town planner. So far as the reservation of site No. 57 as municipal industrial estate is concerned, the report reads as under : “Sirur town has got excellent communication facilities by road and it would be an ideal place for industrialisation if additional supply of water and power is made available and requisite arrangement for disposal of waste is made properly. The municipal council has already initiated augmentation of water supply scheme which can feed to certain extent industrial water demand. Industrial zone was proposed on Pune-Nagar and along Pabal road in sanctioned Development Plan. It is a Government land. Now that Government has adopted decentralization policy for industry and that Bombay Pune regions have become restricted, small towns such as Sirur can attract the future industries. As such industrial zone of sanctioned Development Plan is being reserved as 'Municipal Industrial Estate'. This would encourage local industrialist as Municipal Council would develop lands. The cement works factory is also started along south-west border of municipal limits. Adjoining area is also now proposed for industrial zone.” 3. On September 27, 1983 the State Government sanctioned the said draft development plan submitted by the petitioner municipal council. As per the sanction granted by the Government, the plan became operative from December 1, 1983. In the meanwhile, on February 5, 1981 the State Government issued a notification dissolving all the municipal councils in the State including municipal council of Sirur. As per the sanction granted by the Government, the plan became operative from December 1, 1983. In the meanwhile, on February 5, 1981 the State Government issued a notification dissolving all the municipal councils in the State including municipal council of Sirur. At that time the statutory tenure of Sirur municipal council was already over. After the said notification, the authority, powers and functions of the municipal council vested in the administrator who was appointed by the State Government. 4. On February 4, 1984, the 3rd respondent who was a local M.L.A., made an application to the Chief Officer of the municipal council describing himself as the chief promoter of respondent No. 2 Shri Ramalinga Co-operative Industrial Vasahat, Society for issuing a no objection certificate for allotment of survey No. 1130 which is a reserved site for municipal industrial estate to the respondent No. 2 society. The application made by the respondent No. 3 reads as follows : “The proposed Ramaling Industrial Co-operative Institute has proceeded for establishing an Industrial Estate on a co-operative principle at Sirur, Ghodnade. The Co-operative Industrial Institute is in need of a land and it is found that S.No. 1130 Sirur has been reserved for Industrial Estate. The said land is intended to be obtained for the proposed institute and therefore no objection certificate is to be taken from your office. Therefore it is prayed that, no objection certificate should be issued.” 5. It appears that on the same day the Chief Officer of the municipal council put up a draft letter before the administrator pointing out to the administrator the position of the land in question and the necessity of taking Government sanction. But it appears that the administrator scored out certain parts of the letter and directed issuance of no objection certificate. The date of the draft letter appears to have been changed from 4th February, 1984 to 6th February, 1984 and on the basis of this draft letter a final letter granting no objection was issued in favour of respondent No. 2 society on 6th February, 1984. 6. In the meanwhile, on 5th February, 1984, respondent No. 3 in his capacity as the chief promoter also applied for no objection certificate for granting water supply to respondent No. 2 Society. 6. In the meanwhile, on 5th February, 1984, respondent No. 3 in his capacity as the chief promoter also applied for no objection certificate for granting water supply to respondent No. 2 Society. In pursuance of this application the chief officer addressed a letter to respondent No. 3 to the effect that necessary water supply will be given to the respondent No. 2 society and that the municipal council will extend the necessary co-operation. 7. It seems that on 4th April, 1984 respondent No. 3 applied to the then Chief Minister that he wanted to help the educated unemployed in Sirur Taluka and for that purpose he has formed the respondent No. 2 society and therefore he demanded allotment of plot No. 57 which was reserved for industrial purpose. According to the petitioner, the Chief Minister made favourable endorsement on that application. The respondent No. 3 then approached the Collector of Pune for allotment of site No. 57 in favour of respondent No. 2. It appears that the Collector raised certain queries in respect of the proposed society in pursuance of a letter from the Government but it is not clear as to whether the queries were satisfactorily answered or not but suffice it to say that by his letter of July 19, 1984 the Collector almost gave a guarantee that site No. 57 would be treated as a reserved site for respondent No. 2 society although finalisation of the permission will take some time. In para 2 of the said letter the Collector observed : “It will take quite some time for getting the things done. Therefore, we have decided to reserve the said land only for your Institute. By this letter we are conveying you that the necessary proposal regarding the allotment of land to your Institute will be sent in due course and we are trying our best to do the needful.” 8. By this letter dated February 1, 1985, the Collector communicated the decision to respondent No. 2 that the allotment of site No. 57 is sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 2 society by the State Government. In pursuance of this decision, possession of land was given to respondent No. 2 society. 9. By this letter dated February 1, 1985, the Collector communicated the decision to respondent No. 2 that the allotment of site No. 57 is sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 2 society by the State Government. In pursuance of this decision, possession of land was given to respondent No. 2 society. 9. While the application of respondent No. 2 was being processed by the State Government, elections were held to the petitioner municipal council and the elected body took charge of the affairs of the council in May 1985. It appears that when the decision taken by the administrator for giving no objection to the respondent No. 2 society was brought to the notice of the council, it was felt that the decision of the administrator was contrary to law and against the interest of the municipal council. In that view of the matter the council took a decision to revoke the no objection certificate and the decision to that effect was communicated to the respondent No. 2 society under letter dated January 20, 1986. 10. Pursuant to revocation of no objection granted to respondent No. 2 the municipal council made several representation to the Collector of Pune as well as to the State Government for cancelling the allotment but failed to evoke any response from the authorities and therefore the municipal council has approached this Court by filing the present petition. The petition was admitted and an order of temporary injunction was passed restraining respondent No. 2 society from raising any construction upon the land in site No. 57 and dealing with or disposing of the said land. Consequently, respondent No. 2 has not raised any construction upon the land and it is still lying vacant. 11. The petitioner council has challenged the allotment of the land to the 2nd respondent mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the council has contended that the action of the administrator in granting no objection certificate to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is completely illegal inasmuch as the provisions of section 37 of the Act were not followed before taking such decision which amounts to a minor modification of the plan. Secondly, it is contended that the action of the administrator is completely mala fide. It is alleged that the only object was to oblige respondent No. 2 who was a M.L.A. belonging to the then ruling party. Secondly, it is contended that the action of the administrator is completely mala fide. It is alleged that the only object was to oblige respondent No. 2 who was a M.L.A. belonging to the then ruling party. It is also alleged that the allotment has been made due to the influence carried by the respondent No. 2 with the ruling government of that time. In this context the haste shown in granting the application of the respondent No. 2 is particularly highlighted. On these averments it is prayed that the decision of the allotment of the land to the respondent No. 2 society should be quashed and set aside. 12. The State Government has not filed reply to this petition although there is a reply by the 3rd respondent on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have denied that granting of no objection certificate amounts to a minor modification of the development plan. It is the case of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 that since user of the land remains the same, the provisions of section 37 are not attracted. It is contended by them that the land comprised in site No. 57 is the property of the State Government and not of the municipal council and therefore there is no illegality in the allotment of the land by the State Government to the respondent No. 2 Society. It is further contended that the administrator has rightly granted no objection certificate to the society. It is also contended that after obtaining the no objection certificate the application for allotment has been processed by all the concerned authorities and it is found to be valid proposal. Lastly, it is alleged that the municipal council has filed the petition with ulterior motive and only with a view to harass the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who want to help the prospective entrepreneurs in the area. 13. Before we deal with the rival contentions it is necessary to refer to relevant provisions of the Act. Lastly, it is alleged that the municipal council has filed the petition with ulterior motive and only with a view to harass the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who want to help the prospective entrepreneurs in the area. 13. Before we deal with the rival contentions it is necessary to refer to relevant provisions of the Act. The purpose of passing of the Act as can be seen from its preamble is to make provision for planning the development and use of land in regions to make better provision for the preparation of development plans with a view to ensuring that the town planning schemes are made in proper manner and their execution is made effective to make provisions for the compulsory acquisition of land required for public purposes connected with the aforesaid matters. 14. Section 33 of the Act provides for development plan for comprehensive development of the area. Sub-section (1) of section 33 provides that after publication of notice regarding preparation of draft development plan under section 26, the planning authority may prepare plan or plans showing proposals for the development of an area or areas which in the opinion of the planning authority should be developed or redeveloped as a whole and in particular such plans should provide for detail development of specified areas for urban renewal, housing, shopping centres, industrial and civil centres, educational and institutions, architectural features and the other relevant aspects like open spaces, gardens, play grounds etc. 15. Section 22 deals with the contents of the development plan. It provides that its use of land should be reserved and also indicate the manner in which the development of land therein shall be carried out. In particular it provides for certain matters which are necessary for a planned development of the area. 15. Section 22 deals with the contents of the development plan. It provides that its use of land should be reserved and also indicate the manner in which the development of land therein shall be carried out. In particular it provides for certain matters which are necessary for a planned development of the area. It is necessary to note Clauses (a), (g) and (k) which are relevant for our purpose and same read as follows : “(a) proposals for allocating the use of land for purposes, such as residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural, recreational; (g) proposals for designation of sites for service industries, industrial estates and any other development on an extensive scale; (k) proposals of the Central Government, a State Government Planning Authority or public utility undertaking or any other authority established by law for designation of land as subject to acquisition for public purpose or as specified in a Development plan, having regard to the provisions of section 14 or for development or for securing use of the land in the manner provided by or under this Act.” 16. Under section 2(19) 'planning authority' is defined to mean a local authority which includes a special planning authority. The term local authority' is defined in section 2(15) and under clause (b) a municipal council constituted under the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 is a local authority. Then section 2(3) defines appropriate authority to mean any public authority on whose behalf the land is designated for a public purpose in any plan or scheme and which it is authorised to acquire. Therefore, as far as site No. 57 which is reserved for municipal industrial estate is concerned, the appropriate authority is the petitioner municipal council within the meaning of section 2(3) of the Act. 17. Section 31 contemplates sanction to draft development plan by the State Government with or without modifications. Sub-section (4) of section 31 provides that the State Government shall publish notification bringing the final development plan and the date on which the final development plan shall come into operation and sub-section (6) of the said section says that the development plan which has come into operation shall be called the final development plan and shall be subject to the provisions of the Act and shall be binding on the planning authority. 18. Section 37 prescribes procedure for minor modification of the final development plan. 18. Section 37 prescribes procedure for minor modification of the final development plan. Since both the parties have heavily relied upon this section, it will be necessary to reproduce the entire section which reads as follows: “37(1) Where a modification of any part of, or any proposal made in, a final Development plan is of such a nature that it will not change the character of such Development plan, the Planning Authority may or when so directed by the State Government (shall, within sixty days from the date of such direction, publish notice) in the Official Gazette (and in such other manner as may be determined by it) inviting objections and suggestions from any person with respect to the proposed modification not later than one month from the date of such notice; and shall also serve notice on all persons affected by the proposed modification and after giving a hearing to any such persons, submit the proposed modification (with amendments, if any), to the State Government for sanction. (1-A) If the Planning Authority fails to issue the notice as directed by the State Government, the State Government, shall issue the notice, and thereupon, the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply as they apply in relation to a notice to be published by a Planning Authority. (2) The State Government may, after making such inquiry as it may consider necessary after hearing the persons served with the notice and after consulting the Director of Town Planning by notification in the Official Gazette, sanction the modification with or without such changes, and subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, or refuse to accord sanction. If a modification is sanctioned, the final Development plans shall be deemed to have been modified accordingly.” 19. We have seen that the Act provides for a complete scheme for preparation and finalisation of the development plan and it also provides for machinery for making minor modifications to such plan, if such modifications become necessary in future. Now we proceed to examine the contentions raised by the petitioner in the light of the scheme of the Act. We have seen that the development plan prepared by the petitioner municipal council, which is the planning authority, was sanctioned by the State Government. Admittedly, reservation of site 57 for the municipal industrial estate is retained while sanctioning the final plan. We have seen that the development plan prepared by the petitioner municipal council, which is the planning authority, was sanctioned by the State Government. Admittedly, reservation of site 57 for the municipal industrial estate is retained while sanctioning the final plan. This site 57 is reserved for municipal industrial estate i.e. the industrial estate to be formed and established by the municipal council. The final development plan thus contains specific proposal that site 57 is meant for municipal industrial estate for which the municipal council is the “appropriate authority” within the meaning of the Act. If this reservation is to be lifted or the industrial municipal estate is to be converted into a private industrial estate to be developed either by a society or any other private individual it will certainly amount to minor modification of the development plan, attracting provisions of section 37, requiring the planning authority to follow the necessary procedure before causing such modification. It is not disputed that no such procedure was followed in the present case. We have indicated that in fact there was no proposal for modification of the plan. What the administrator has done is that he simply issued a no objection certificate to the respondent No. 2 society which has the effect of revocation or cancellation of the reservation of the site as a municipal industrial estate. This clearly amounts to a minor modification of the plan since a site reserved for municipal industrial estate is being converted into a private industrial estate. It is true that the administrator was vested with all the powers of the municipal council but he could not have made such modification in the plan without following the provisions of section 37 of the Act. Therefore, in our opinion, the grant of no objection certificate and all consequential actions taken in furtherance of the no-objection certificate are liable to be struck down on this short ground of non-compliance of section 37. 20. Mr. Ketkar, learned Counsel, however, strenuously contended that the grant of no objection certificate does not amount to modification of the development plan. Mr. Ketkar urged that though the original reservation of municipal industrial estate ceased to exist, nevertheless, the site continues to be an industrial estate as the user remains the same and therefore it cannot be said that there is a modification of the development plan. Mr. Ketkar urged that though the original reservation of municipal industrial estate ceased to exist, nevertheless, the site continues to be an industrial estate as the user remains the same and therefore it cannot be said that there is a modification of the development plan. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contention of Mr. Ketkar. In the first place, Mr. Ketkar's assumption that the action will amount to modification in the plan only if there is a change of user is not correct. Apart from specifying its user for different areas, the development plan also contains several other proposals including reservations of sites for Government, planning authority and other public authorities. In the present case there was specific reservation of the site No. 57 for municipal industrial estate. The letter issued by the administrator has the effect of virtually removing the reservation because now the land is to be developed as an industrial estate not by the municipal council but by a society. It cannot therefore be said that there is no modification in the plan. In our view the no objection letter amounts to release of the land from the reservation made for the municipal council which is the appropriate authority for the reserved site and therefore compliance with section 37 was absolutely essential. 21. Mr. Zambre, learned A.G.P. made a faint attempt to justify the actions of the Government by taking recourse to section 58 of the Act. Mr. Zambre also placed reliance on the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court (Daud, J.) in (Nagrik Vikas Parishad v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1989(3) Bom.C.R. 210 . We fail to see any relevance of section 58 in the facts of the present case. The said section deals with the situation where the Government itself wants to undertake the development of any particular site and therefore the reliance placed on this section is completely misconceived. The authority relied upon by Mr. Zambre, learned Counsel is also not relevant for our purpose. 22. Turning then to the second contention of the petitioner we find considerable substance in the grievance of the council that the action of the administrator in granting no objection certificate is not bona fide exercise of power. On a careful scrutiny of the record we find that there is complete non application of mind on the part of the authorities. Turning then to the second contention of the petitioner we find considerable substance in the grievance of the council that the action of the administrator in granting no objection certificate is not bona fide exercise of power. On a careful scrutiny of the record we find that there is complete non application of mind on the part of the authorities. It seems that the administrator was too eager to oblige the then M.L.A. which can be seen from the great haste shown in granting no objection. It is pertinent to note that the application made by the 3rd respondent on behalf of the society did not disclose any material information. In fact the society was not even registered when the no objection was granted. No information was supplied as to the composition of the society or its object. The application merely sought no objection on the ground that the society has already approached the Government for allotment of land. Surprisingly the administrator has chosen to grant such application without examining the merits of the society's claim and without even bothering to examine the provisions of the Act. 23. On reading the correspondence between the society and the Collector it is seen that the authorities were rather keen to oblige the 3rd respondent. There is absolutely nothing to show that the administrator or the chief officer even remotely considered the question whether release of the site from the reservation will be in the interest of the municipal council or the public at large. We find that there is complete non-application of mind on the part of the municipal administration in giving the no objection to the respondent No. 2 society. The administrator did not even bother to call for any information or particulars about the respondent No. 2 society. This was particularly essential in view of the fact that their application was completely silent on material particulars. The great haste shown by the administrator in granting the application on the same day was not warranted particularly when the decision had the effect of releasing the property from the reservation. The decision appears to have been taken for political consideration and not on the basis of larger public interest. Mr. Ketkar contended that the authorities have unanimously approved the project of the 2nd respondent and therefore this Court should not interfere. Mr. The decision appears to have been taken for political consideration and not on the basis of larger public interest. Mr. Ketkar contended that the authorities have unanimously approved the project of the 2nd respondent and therefore this Court should not interfere. Mr. Ketkar took us through the affidavit of the 3rd respondent in order to show that all the formalities have been complied with by the society. Merely because there is a subsequent approval by the concerned authorities, the illegality attached to the initial action of the release of the plot from the reservation cannot be removed. In our view the allotment of the land to the 2nd respondent cannot be sustained in law. 24. In the result, petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). No order as to costs. 25. The respondent No. 2 is directed to restore possession of the land to the Government within eight weeks from today. Petition allowed. -----