Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner is a Trust formed to promote general health and to preserve and protect the environment in the city of Indore and has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the vires of Sections 14, 16, 17-A, 18 (2) and 20 of the M. P. Nagar tatha Gram Niwesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short the Adhiniyam ). ( 2. ) THE background facts in which this writ petition has been filed briefly are that a Development Plan of Indore City was prepared and published in the year 1975. The Director, Town and Country Development, M. P. (for short the Director) thereafter prepared a Draft Development Plan, 2011 of the indore City in the year 1996 under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam. The development Plan, 2011 was challenged in this Court in W. P. No. 1157 of 1998. The Court found that the Committee under the amended provisions of Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam was for the first time constituted on 20-3-1997 and took a view that the recommendations made by the Committee prior to the constitution of the statutory committee had become inconsequential. Accordingly, by a consent order dated 29-6-1999, the Court quashed the Draft development Plan, 2011 prepared by the Director. The State Government then constituted a fresh Committee of 91 persons under Section 17-A of the adhiniyam by order dated 5-8-2002 and again re-constituted a Committee of 91 persons under Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam by order dated 13-7-2005. In the meanwhile, a Draft Development Plan was prepared by the Director under sections 14 and 26 of the Adhiniyam and notices were issued under Section 18 (1) of the Adhiniyam on 13-7-2006 inviting objections to the Draft development Plan and the petitioner amongst others filed their objections. A notice was also published in the newspapers that the Committee will hear the objections in the office of the Collector from 25-9-2006 to 30-9-2006. When the matter stood thus, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 21-9-2006 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying for declaring the provisions of Sections 14,16,17-A, 18 (2) and 20 of the Adhiniyam as ultra vires the Constitution and for quashing the order dated 13-7-2005 reconstructing the Committee under section 17-A of the Adhiniyam and for quashing the Draft Development Plan prepared under Sections 14 and 28 of the Adhiniyam. ( 3. ) ON 10-10-2006, the Court while issuing notices of the writ petition directed as an interim measure that in the meanwhile, the Committee constituted under Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam by the State Government by order dated 13-7-2005 may consider the objections but will not submit the development Plan as modified to the Director under sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Adhiniyam. Thereafter, on 30-11-2006, the Court after hearing Mr. A. M. Mathur, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. N. Singh, learned Advocate General for the respondents modified the interim order dated 10-10-2006 and directed that the Development Plan may be prepared and submitted to the Director and may also be notified but will not be given effect to till final disposal of the writ petition. ( 4. ) AT the hearing of the writ petition, Mr. Mathur submitted that under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, powers are vested in the Director to prepare the Draft Development Plan but the Act does not prescribe the qualifications of the Director and the result is that a non-technical person such as member of the indian Administrative Service is appointed as the Director. He submitted that the city of Chandigarh is a beautiful city because it was planned by an expert town planner. He cited the observations of the Supreme Court in Friends Colony development Committee Vs. State of Orissa, (2004) 8 SCC 733 that in developed and developing countries, planned development of cities is sought to be achieved by town planning and regulating building construction activity and that such planning is a highly complex activity and is based on scientific research study and experience. He argued that since the planning of towns and cities has become a very technical and complex job, a generalist cannot be entrusted with the job of planning. Thus, Section 14 of the Adhiniyam which entrusts the work of planning to a Director without any technical qualification or experience in the specialized field of town planning is unreasonable and arbitrary and violative of article of the Constitution. ( 5. ) IN reply, Mr. Thus, Section 14 of the Adhiniyam which entrusts the work of planning to a Director without any technical qualification or experience in the specialized field of town planning is unreasonable and arbitrary and violative of article of the Constitution. ( 5. ) IN reply, Mr. Singh submitted that Section 3 of the Adhiniyam would show that the Director is assisted in the work of planning by Additional director of Town and Country Planning, Joint Director of Town and Country planning, Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning and Assistant director of Town and Country Planning, all of whom possess technical qualification, experience and expertise in the field of town planning as would be clear from the M. P. Town and Country Planning (Gazetted Class I and Class II services) Recruitment Rules, 1977 under which they are appointed. He argued that since the Director is assisted by a team of technically qualified personnel, the contention of Mr. Mathur that under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, the work of planning has been entrusted to a generalist and not a technical person having expertise and experience in town planning is misconceived. He further submitted that in any case the Legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the work of preparation of Development Plan to the Director and Section 14 of the adhiniyam entrusting the power to prepare the Draft Development Plan on the director cannot be struck down only because the Court thinks that this power should not have been entrusted to a Director who does not have the technical qualification and experience in the field of town planning. ( 6. ) MR. S. C. Bagadia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the ] intervener submitted that the Director is the Head of the Department of Town planning and the Department of Town Planning consists of Additional director, Joint Director, Deputy Director and Assistant Director. ( 6. ) MR. S. C. Bagadia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the ] intervener submitted that the Director is the Head of the Department of Town planning and the Department of Town Planning consists of Additional director, Joint Director, Deputy Director and Assistant Director. He explained that although the Director may be a member of the Indian Administrative services, the Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director and assistant Director are all technically qualified persons and are experts in town planning and thus the Development Plan is not just the work of the Director but the work of the whole Department of Town and Country Planning and hence the contention that the power under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam has been vested only on the Director to prepare the Development Plan who has no technical qualification, experience and expertise in town planning is thoroughly misconceived. ( 7. ) CHAPTER II of the Adhiniyam is titled Director of Town and Country planning and contains only one section, namely Section 3, which is quoted herein below :- "3. Director and other Officers.- (1) The State Government shall appoint an officer to be the Director of Town and Country Planning for the State and may appoint one or more officers of the following categories to assist him namely:- (a) Additional Director of Town and Country Planning; (b) Joint Director of Town and Country Planning; (c) Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning; (d) Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning; and (e) Such other categories of officers as may be prescribed. (2) The Director shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as are conferred or imposed upon him by or under this Act and the officers appointed to assist the Director shall, within such areas as the State Government may specify, exercise such powers and perform such duties conferred and imposed on the Director by or under this Act as the State Government may, by special or general order, direct. (3) The officers appointed to assist the Director shall be subordinate to him and shall work under his guidance, supervision and control. (3) The officers appointed to assist the Director shall be subordinate to him and shall work under his guidance, supervision and control. " It will be clear from sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Adhiniyam, quoted above, that the Director is to exercise his powers and perform his duties under the Adhiniyam not alone but with the assistance of Additional Director, Joint director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director of Town and Country Planning and such other categories of officers as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) of section 3 further provides that the Director shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as are conferred or imposed upon him by or under the Act and the officers appointed to assist the Director shall, within such areas as the state Government may specify, exercise such powers and perform such duties conferred and imposed on the Director by or under the Act as the State government may, by special or general order, direct. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Adhiniyam further provides that the officers appointed to assist the director shall be subordinate to him and shall work under his guidance, supervision and control. The power to prepare a development plan under section 14 of the Adhiniyam conferred on the Director thus is to be exercised by the Director as the Head of the Town and Country Planning Department, which comprises of not only the Director but also Additional Director, Joint Director, deputy Director, Assistant Director and other categories of officers who all have knowledge, expertise and experience in the field of Town and Country planning. In other words, the actual work of town and country planning is not done by the Director but by the technical personnel having knowledge, expertise and experience in town and country planning and the Director is only the head of the Department of Town and Country Planning who has to exercise his supervision and control on all such technical personnel who prepare the development plan. Hence, we do not find any merit in the contention of Mr. Mathur that under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, the work of preparing a development plan is entrusted to the Director who is a generalist and who has no knowledge, expertise and experience whatsoever in town and country planning. ( 8. ) MR. Hence, we do not find any merit in the contention of Mr. Mathur that under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, the work of preparing a development plan is entrusted to the Director who is a generalist and who has no knowledge, expertise and experience whatsoever in town and country planning. ( 8. ) MR. Mathur next submitted that Section 16 (1) of the Adhiniyam provides that on publication of the existing land use map under Section 15, no person shall institute or change the use of any land or carry out any development of land for any purpose other than that indicated in the existing land use map without the permission in writing of the Director. He submitted that absolute power without any guideline or policy has been vested in the Director to grant or refuse permission to a person wanting to institute or change the use of any land or carry out development of land for the purpose other than the one indicated in the land use map and such vesting of absolute power in the Director by the legislature without any guideline or policy amounts to excessive delegation of legislation power. He submitted that this power of the Director under Section 16 (1) of the Adhiniyam is also being exercised by the Joint Director, Deputy director and Assistant Director in their respective areas and as a consequence, there has been gross abuse of the power vested under Section 16 (1) of the adhiniyam not only by the Director but also by Additional Director, Joint director, Deputy Director and Assistant Director and permissions have been given by them taking advantage of the absence of legislative policy or guideline in Section 16 (1) of the Adhiniyam. He submitted that Sections 25 to 32 of the adhiniyam lay down the procedure for grant of permission or refusal of permission by the Director to a person who wants to institute any change in the use of land or carry out any development other than that indicated in the existing land use map and if the Director or his subordinates follows the procedure laid down in Sections 25 to 32 of the Adhiniyam, there will be no misuse of the power under Section 16 (1) of the Adhiniyam. ( 9. ) MR. ( 9. ) MR. Singh, on the other hand, submitted that the power under section 16 of the Adhiniyam has to be exercised by the Director and his subordinates in conformity with the other provisions of the Adhiniyam and if in a given case, the power is abused or misused, then the exercise of such power is always open to challenge in an independent proceeding and Section 16 of the adhiniyam cannot be struck down on the ground that there is a possibility of abuse or misuse by the Director or his subordinate. He cited the decisions of the supreme Court in Kishan Prakash Sharma and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2001) 5 SCC 212 , Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India and others, (2005) 6 SCC 281 and Ajit Kumar Nag Vs. General Manager (PJ) Indian Oil corporation Limited and others, (2005) 7 SCC 764 . ( 10. ) MR. Bagadia supported the contention of Mr. Singh and submitted that in Ahmad Noor Mohd. Bhati Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2005 SC 2115 , the supreme Court has held that the provisions of Act cannot be held to be unreasonable and arbitrary and unconstitutional merely because the authority vested with the power under the provisions of the Act may abuse the power. He also submitted that the petitioner has not placed on record a single instance where the Director or his subordinate has misused the power conferred on him under Section 16 (1) of the Adhiniyam. ( 11. ) IN Kishan Prakash Sharma Vs. Union of India (supra), cited by Mr. Singh, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, after examining its earlier decisions on delegated legislation, held that the Legislatures in India have wide powers of legislation but cannot delegate to the authorities under the statute essential legislative function which consists of determination of the legislative policy. The Constitution Bench also held that the Legislature cannot delegate uncanalised and uncontrolled power and must set the limits of the powers delegated by declaring the policy or must lay down the standards or guidelines for those in whom the power is delegated. The Constitution Bench also held that such delegation will be valid only when the legislative policy or guidelines or standards are adequately laid down as the delegate is only empowered to carry out the policy as per the guidelines laid down by the Legislature. The Constitution Bench also held that such delegation will be valid only when the legislative policy or guidelines or standards are adequately laid down as the delegate is only empowered to carry out the policy as per the guidelines laid down by the Legislature. In the aforesaid decision, the Constitution Bench summed up the tests for ascertaining whether there is excessive delegation by the Legislature in Paragraph 18 of the judgment at Pages 226 and 227 as reported in (2001) 5 SCC in the following language:- "18. . . . . . . Thus, the question is whether any particular legislation suffers from excessive delegation and in ascertaining the same, the scheme, the provisions of the statute including its preamble, and the facts and circumstances in the background of which the statute is enacted, the history of the legislation, the complexity of the problems which a modern State has to face, will have to be taken note of and if, on a liberal construction given to a statute, a legislative policy and guidelines for its execution are brought out, the statute, even if skeletal, will be upheld to be valid but this rule of liberal construction should not be carried by the Court to the extent of always trying to discover a dormant or latent legislative policy to sustain an arbitrary power conferred on the executive. . . . . " Hence, while ascertaining whether a particular legislation suffers from excessive delegation, the entire scheme of the statute including its preamble and provisions as well as the facts and circumstances in the background of which the statute is enacted and the complexity of problems which a modern State has to face, will have to be taken note of and if, on a liberal construction given to a statute, the legislative policy and guidelines for its execution are brought out, the statute, even if skeletal, will be upheld to be valid but the rule of liberal construction should not be carried by the Court to the extent of always trying to discover some dormant or latent legislative policy to sustain an arbitrary power conferred on the executive. ( 12. ) IN the light of this law laid down by the Constitution Bench in kishan Prakash Sharma Vs. ( 12. ) IN the light of this law laid down by the Constitution Bench in kishan Prakash Sharma Vs. Union of India (supra), we may now examine the scheme of the Adhiniyam, its Preamble and its provisions for finding out whether the Legislature has laid down any policy or guideline for exercise of the power under Section 16 (1) of the Adhiniyam by the Director and his delegates. The Preamble of the Adhiniyam is extracted herein below:- "an Act to make provision for planning and development and use of land; to make better provision for the preparation of development plans and zoning plans with a view to ensuring town planning schemes are made in a proper manner and their execution is made effective, to constitute Town and Country Planning authority or Proper implementation of town and country development plan, to provide for the development and administration of special areas through Special Area Development authority, to make provision for the compulsory acquisition of land required for the purpose of the development plans and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. " It will be clear from the Preamble of the Adhiniyam, extracted above, that the Adhiniyam has been made for making provisions for planning and development and use of land and for preparation of development plans and zoning plans with a view to ensuring town planning schemes are made in a proper manner and their execution is made effective. ( 13. ) CHAPTER IV of the Adhiniyam is titled as Planning Areas and development Plans and Sections 14, 15, 16 and 17 in Chapter IV of the adhiniyam as amended by Act No. 22 of 2005, which are relevant, are quoted herein below:- "14. Director to prepare development plans.- Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Director shall- (a) prepare an existing land use map; (b) prepare a development plan; (c) *** *** *** (d) carry such surveys and inspections and obtain such pertinent public institutions as may be necessary for the preparation of the plans; (e) perform such duties and functions as are supplemental, incidental and consequential to any of the foregoing or as may be assigned by the State Government for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act. 15. 15. Existing land use maps.- (1) The Director shall carry out the survey indicating the natural hazard prone areas and prepare an existing land use map indicating the natural hazard prone areas and, forthwith publish the same in such manner as may be prescribed together with public notice of the preparation of the map and of place or places where the copies may be inspected, inviting objections and suggestions in writing from any person with respect thereto within thirty days from the date of publication of such notice. (2) After the expiry of the period specified in the notice published under sub-section (1), the Director may, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to all such persons who have filed the objections or suggestions, make such modifications therein as may be considered desirable. (3) As soon as may be after the map is adopted with or without modifications the Director shall publish notice of the adoption of the map and the place or places where the copies of the same may be inspected. (4) A copy of the notice shall also be published in the Gazette and it shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the map has been duly prepared and adopted. 16. Freezing of land use.- (1) On the publication of the existing land use map under Section 15- (a) no person shall institute or change the use of any land or carry out any development of land for any purpose other than that indicated in the existing land use map without the permission in writing of the Director : provided that the Director shall not refuse permission if the change is for the purpose of agriculture; (b) no Local Authority or any officer or other authority shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, grant permission for the change in use of land otherwise than as indicated in the existing land use map without the permission in writing of the Director. 17. 17. Contents of development plan.- (1) A development plan shall take into account any draft five year and Annual Development Plan of the district prepared under the Madhya Pradesh Zila Yojana samiti Adhiniyam, 1995 (No. 19 of 1995) in which the planning area is situated and shall- (a) indicate broadly the land use proposed in the planning area; (b) allocate broadly areas or zones of land, keeping in view the regulation in natural hazard prone areas, for- (i) residential, industrial, commercial or agricultural purpose; (ii) open spaces, parks and gardens, greenbelts, zoological gardens and playgrounds; (iii) public institutions and offices; (iv) such special purposes as the Director may deem fit; (c) lay down the pattern of National and State Highways connecting the planning area with the rest of the region, ring roads, arterial roads and the major roads within the planning area; (d) provide for the location of air-ports, railway stations, bus terminus and indicate the proposed extension and development of railways and canals; (e) make proposals for general landscaping and preservation of natural areas; (f) project the requirement of the planning area of such amenities and utilities as water, drainage, electricity and suggest their fulfillment; (g) propose broad based regulations for zoning, by way of guidelines,within each zone or sector of the location, height, size of buildings and structures, open spaces, courtyards and the use to which such buildings and structures and land may be put; (h) lay down the broad-based traffic circulation patterns in a city; (i) suggest architectural control features; elevation and frontages of buildings and structures; (j) indicate measures for flood control, prevention of air and water pollution, disposal of garbage and general environmental control. " A reading of Sections 14 and 15 of the Adhiniyam, quoted above, would show that the Director has to prepare an existing land use map and a development plan and the existing land use map is to be prepared and finalized and published in the manner provided in Section 15 quoted above. Section 16 (1) (a) of the Adhiniyam provides that on publication of the existing land use map, no person shall institute or change the use of any land or carry out any development of land for any purpose other than that indicated in the existing land use map without the permission in writing of the Director. Section 16 (1) (a) of the Adhiniyam provides that on publication of the existing land use map, no person shall institute or change the use of any land or carry out any development of land for any purpose other than that indicated in the existing land use map without the permission in writing of the Director. Section 16 (1) (b) of the Adhiniyam further provides that on publication of an existing land use map, no local authority or any officer or other authority shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, grant permission for the change in use of land otherwise than as indicated in the existing land use map without the permission in writing of the Director. Section 16 of the adhiniyam, as rightly submitted by Mr. Mathur, does not lay down any policy or guideline which has to be followed by the Director while exercising his power to grant or refuse permission and we have to examine the other provisions of the adhiniyam to find out whether any such policy or guideline has been laid down by the legislature. ( 14. ) SECTIONS 25 to 32 of the Adhiniyam to which reference was made by mr. Mathur apply only after the development plan comes into force as would be clear from the language of Sections 25 to 32 of the Adhiniyam. Sub-section (5)of Section 19 of the Adhiniyam states that the development plan comes into operation from the date of publication of the notice in the Gazette of the development plan as finally approved by the State Government under Section 19. Hence, the provisions of Sections 25 to 32 of the Adhiniyam do not lay down the procedure for grant of permission by the Director under Section 16 (1) of the adhiniyam when the development plan is under preparation and is in a draft stage and has not been finalized and published by the State Government under section 19 of the Adhiniyam. We have therefore to look into the other provisions of the Adhiniyam to ascertain whether the power of the Director under Section 16 of the Adhiniyam to grant or refuse permission in writing for any change in use of land or for carrying out any development of land for any purpose other than that indicated in the existing land use map, is controlled or guided by any policy laid down by the Legislature. ( 15. ) AS we have seen, the Preamble of the Adhiniyam states that the adhiniyam has made provisions for planning and development and use of land and for preparation of development plans and zoning plans with a view to ensure that town planning schemes are made in a proper manner and their execution is made effective. Under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, the Director has been entrusted with the power to prepare a development plan. Section 17 of the adhiniyam enumerates the contents of a development plan and such contents include broad indications of the land use proposed in the planning area. The director and his subordinates who are entrusted with the work of town planning will be aware of the contents and details of the development plan under preparation and the proposed land use in the development plan under preparation. Accordingly, whenever permission is sought from the Director or his subordinates for change of the use of any land or for development of land for any purpose other than as indicated in the existing land use map, the Director or his subordinates has to refuse such permission where such change in the use of any land or development of land would be inconsistent with the proposed land use in the development plans under preparation. On the other hand, the director or his subordinates may defer the grant of permission where the change in the use of any land or development of any land for any purpose other than as indicated in the existing land use map is consistent with the proposed land use in the development plan under preparation until the development plan is finalized, approved and published by the State Government under Section 19 of the adhiniyam. We are, thus, of the view that Section 16 (1) of the Adhiniyam does not vest absolute power in the Director or his subordinates or refuse or grant permission for any change in the use of any land or in development of land for any purpose other than that as indicated in the existing land use map and that such power is controlled and is to be exercised in accordance with the development plan under preparation and not otherwise. Hence, there is no excessive delegation by the Legislature to the Director under Section 16 (1) of the Adhiniyam and Section 16 (1) of the Adhiniyam is thus intra vires. ( 16. ) ONCE we have held that Section 16 (1) of the Adhiniyam is intra vires and valid, the mere possibility of misuse of the power under Section 16 (1) of the adhiniyam would not make the section ultra vires or unconstitutional. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (supra), in Paragraph 14 at Page 286 of the AIR quoted below:- "14. From the decided cases in India as well as in the United States of America, the principle appears to be well settled that if a statutory provision is otherwise intra vires, constitutional and valid, mere possibility of abuse of power in a given case would not make it objectionable, ultra vires or unconstitutional. In such cases, action and not the section may be vulnerable. If it is so, the Court by upholding the provision of law, may still set aside the action, order or decision and grant appropriate relief to the person aggrieved. " The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar Nag vs. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others (supra)and Ahmad Noor Mohd. Bhati Vs. State of Gujarat (supra ). Thus, there is no merit in the contention of Mr. Mathur that Section 16 (1) of the Adhiniyam is ultra vires and is liable to be struck down. ( 17. ) MR. Bhati Vs. State of Gujarat (supra ). Thus, there is no merit in the contention of Mr. Mathur that Section 16 (1) of the Adhiniyam is ultra vires and is liable to be struck down. ( 17. ) MR. Mathur next submitted that sub-section (1) of Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam provides that the State Government shall constitute a committee consisting of the authorities and persons named in clauses (a) to (i)of sub-section (1) of Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam and the State Government has constituted a Committee of as many as 91 persons by order dated 13-7-2005. He submitted that sub-section (2) of Section 17-A states that the Committee constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 17-A shall hear the objections after publication of the draft development plan under Section 18 and suggest modifications or alterations, if any, to the Director. He pointed out that Section 17-A does not state who would be the Chairman of the Committee and does not also state what would be the quorum for a meeting of such a large committee of 91 persons. He submitted that Section 17-A does not provide for inclusion of independence, impartial and expert town planners having experience in preparing development plans in the Committee. He submitted that the Master plan of Indore was prepared in the year 1925 by a foreign expert Pattrick Gibbis and the development plan of Chandigarh was prepared by another foreigner, a frenchman. He vehemently argued that in the absence of experts in town planning in the Committee, the Committee will comprise of only laymen who have no knowledge whatsoever of town planning. He referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Friends Colony Development committee Vs. State of Orissa (supra), that town planning is a highly complex subject and is based on scientific research, study and experience. He argued that a body of generalists who have no knowledge of the highly complex subject of town planning will not be able to perform their duties of hearing objections to the draft development plan and of suggesting modifications or alterations, if any, to the draft development plan. ( 18. ) MR. He argued that a body of generalists who have no knowledge of the highly complex subject of town planning will not be able to perform their duties of hearing objections to the draft development plan and of suggesting modifications or alterations, if any, to the draft development plan. ( 18. ) MR. Mathur submitted that under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Adhiniyam, the Director is required to publish the draft development plan prepared under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, inviting objections and suggestions in writing from any person with respect thereto and under sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Adhiniyam, the Committee has to consider all such objections and suggestions as may be received and has to afford a reasonable opportunity to all the persons affected by the draft development plan, of being heard and thereafter suggest such modifications in the draft development plan as may be considered necessary and submit the plan as modified to the Director. He argued that this provision has been made for affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to all persons affected by the draft development plan because the development plan finally made will affect the rights of all persons in the town for which the draft development plan is being finalized. He vehemently argued that in the absence of a Chairman who will preside over the meetings of the Committee of as many as 91 persons and in the absence of a quorum for the meetings of the Committee of 91 persons, reasonable opportunity of hearing afforded to persons affected by the draft development plan would be rendered illusory. He submitted that a development plan affects not only the rights to property of persons located in the plan area but also their very life, and the procedure laid down in Sections 17-A and 18 of the adhiniyam is unreasonable and arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. ( 19. ) MR. Mathur cited the decision of the Delhi High Court in Joginder kumar Singla and others Vs. Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi, AIR 2005 Delhi 258, in which a Full Bench of Delhi High Court has held that the development plan which regulates or prohibits uses of land/building is a positive step in the direction of providing a decent life with human dignity guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. Govt. of N. C. T. of Delhi, AIR 2005 Delhi 258, in which a Full Bench of Delhi High Court has held that the development plan which regulates or prohibits uses of land/building is a positive step in the direction of providing a decent life with human dignity guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. He also cited the decision in the case of Dr. B. L. Wadehra Vs. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2969 , in which the Supreme Court has held that environmental degradation and pollution affects the right to life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution. He relied on the decision of the allahabad High Court in J. N. Chaturvedi Vs. Commissioner, AIR 2001 Allah. 148, in which a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that the drainage system is an essential part of the lifeline of a city and without a proper drainage system in the city, there are bound to be epidemics, disease, water logging and other kinds of problems and hence affects the right to a dignified and civilized life of a person guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution. He cited sushanta Tagore Vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 1975 , in which the Supreme court has observed that the land use plan should be prepared keeping in view the protection and preservation of ecology and environment. He submitted that in Obayya Pujary and others Vs. Member Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution control Board, Bangalore, AIR 1999 Karnt. 157, a Division Bench of Karnataka high Court has taken a view that environmental pollution caused by unplanned stone crushing activity affects the health of human beings and thus violates their right to life under Art. 21 of the Constitution. ( 20. ) MR. Mathur submitted that the Supreme Court in Smt. Maneka gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 , has held that reasonableness is an essential element of equality or non- arbitrariness which pervades Art. 14 of the constitution and any action of the State Government which affects the right guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution must answer the test of reasonableness and has to be in conformity with Art. 14 of the Constitution. He also relied on the decision in Baldev Singh Vs. He also relied on the decision in Baldev Singh Vs. State of H. P. , AIR 1987 SC1 239, in which the Supreme Court has held that before a notified area is constituted under Section 256 of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968, the people of the locality should have been afforded opportunity of being heard and the administrative decision by the State Government should have been taken after considering the view of the residents. He relied on the decision in Mardia chemicals Limited Vs. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311 , in which the Supreme court has held that the condition of pre deposit of 75% of the amount before an appeal is filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 to the Debts recovery Tribunal under sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act is unreasonable and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. He also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others Vs. Unni and others, (2007) 2 SCC 365 , in which Rule 9 (2) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in auction) Rules, 2002 was held to be vague and unworkable. ( 21. ) IN reply, Mr. Singh submitted that Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam has been introduced in the Adhiniyam with the object of involving representatives of people in the preparation of town development plan and is in conformity with the provisions of Parts IX and IX -A of the Constitution, which provides for conferring powers on local representative bodies, such as municipal Corporations, Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats, Zila panchayats, Janapad Panchayats, Gram Panchayats, for preparation of development plans. He submitted that sub-section (1) of Section 17-A of the adhiniyam therefore provides that all such heads of local bodies are represented in the Committee which will consider and suggest modifications or alterations to the draft development plan. He argued that a perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam would show that the functions assigned to the Committee are not adjudicatory but merely recommendatory. He argued that a perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam would show that the functions assigned to the Committee are not adjudicatory but merely recommendatory. He explained that the Committee Constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam is not required under sub-section (2) of Section 17-A or sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Adhiniyam to decide the objections to the draft development plan but only to consider the objections received and make suggestions, modifications or alterations and thereafter the entire record along with the objections received and the suggestions made by the Committee are forwarded to the Director who, in turn, sends it to the State Government along with his comments and the final decision is required to be taken by the State government under Section 19 (1) of the Adhiniyam. He submitted that the legislature, in its wisdom, has not mentioned who would be the Chairman of the committee and what would be the quorum of the meeting of the committee and has purposefully left it to the Committee to decide these matters. He submitted that the Legislature in its wisdom has decided not to put any expert in the committee as experts were already involved in the preparation of the development plan by the Director. He submitted that the contention of Mr. Mathur that the provisions of Section 17-A and Section 18 of the Adhiniyam are unreasonable and arbitrary is therefore misconceived. ( 22. ) MR. Singh cited the judgment in State of A. P. Vs. Mcdowell and company (supra), in which the Supreme Court has taken a view that no enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is unreasonable and arbitrary and that some other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating the Act. He pointed out that in this judgment, the Supreme Court has further held that the Parliament and Legislatures composed as they are of representatives of the people are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them and the Court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom. He also relied on the observations of the Supreme court in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. DTC Mazdoor Sangh, (1991) Supp. He also relied on the observations of the Supreme court in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. DTC Mazdoor Sangh, (1991) Supp. (1)SCC 600, that it is a generally accepted principle that Judges interpreting statutes, should give effect to the Legislators intent and by doing so, the Courts do recognize their subordinate position. He submitted that the Court, therefore, cannot strike down the provisions of Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam if the legislature has thought it fit in its wisdom to constitute a committee of representatives of the local bodies and the people residing in the planning area and excluded therefrom experts in town planning to hear the objections to the draft development plan and make suggestions and modifications to the draft development plan. ( 23. ) MR. Singh cited the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Wednesbury corporation Vs. Ministry, (1965) 3 All ER 571, in support of his contention that functions performed by the committee under sub-section (2) of Section 17-A and sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Adhiniyam are not judicial or quasi-judicial in nature and a lot freedom must be left to the committee. He also cited the decision of the House of Lords in Bushell and another Vs. Secretary, (1980) 2 all ER 608, wherein it has been held that in absence of the rules, regulating the procedure to be followed at a local enquiry held pursuant to a particular statutory provision, it was within the discretion of the Minister or Inspector appointed by him on his behalf considering the enquiry to decide what procedure is to be followed in the enquiry. He argued that it was therefore not necessary for the Legislature to have provided in Section 17-A or Section 18 of the Adhiniyam who would be the Chairman at the meeting and what would be the quorum of the meeting and it is for the Committee to take decisions on these procedural aspects. Finally, Mr. Singh cited K. L. Gupta Vs. Municipal corporation of Greater Bombay and others, AIR 1968 SC 303 , in which the supreme Court has observed that if the authorities under the Bombay Town planning Act, 1955 were to hear all the parties with regard to all suggestions made giving them separate and independent hearings, no development plan could ever be prepared. Mr. Bagadiya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the interveners supported the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Singh. Mr. Bagadiya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the interveners supported the aforesaid contentions of Mr. Singh. ( 24. ) IN rejoinder, Mr. Mathur submitted that the defence taken by the respondents that Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam has been introduced accepting the provisions in Part IX -A of the Constitution, is not tenable. He submitted that this is because the Municipal Corporation Act and the Panchayat Act have been excluded from the planning area by notification dated 13-1-1974 issued under section 13 (1) and Section 13 (3) of the Adhiniyam. He also submitted that Art. 243-W of the Constitution, which provides that the Legislature of a State may by law, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, endow the Municipalities with such powers and authorities as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-Government and may also confer upon them the powers to prepare plans for economic development and social justice and implement the schemes in relation to matters listed in Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution, is only an enabling provision, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Shanti G. Patel and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2006) 2 SCC 505 and in munithimmaiah Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2002) 4 SCC 326 . He submitted that Section 243-G of the Constitution and Schedule XI of the constitution also do not include planning and hence Panchayats were not required to be represented in the Committee constituted under Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam. He argued that the Adhiniyam is a self contained Code for planning and it was not necessary at all to incorporate therein the provisions of section 17-A of the Adhiniyam so as to constitute a Committee of representatives of various local bodies of the plan area of the purpose of hearing objections to the draft development plan and making suggestions and modifications to the draft development plan. ( 25. ) WE have to first examine whether the Court can strike down a provision made in an Act made by the Legislature as violative of Article 14 of the constitution on the ground that such a provision is arbitrary and unreasonable. According to Mr. ( 25. ) WE have to first examine whether the Court can strike down a provision made in an Act made by the Legislature as violative of Article 14 of the constitution on the ground that such a provision is arbitrary and unreasonable. According to Mr. Mathur, if a provision in an Act made by the Legislature is unreasonable and arbitrary, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore and arbitrary, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore the provision will have to be declared as ultra vires the Constitution by the Court. The first authority cited by Mr. Mathur in support of this submission was the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (supra ). In the aforesaid decision in the case of Maneka Gandhi, one of the questions which arose before the Supreme Court is that whether the right to travel and to go outside the country which is included in the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution can be affected by suspending or impounding a passport without following a reasonable procedure and Bhagwati, J. , as He then was delivering the judgment on behalf of the majority of Judges constituting the Constitution Bench held that under Article 21 of the Constitution no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty expect by a procedure which answers the test of reasonableness to be conformity with article 14 of the Constitution. In the language of Bhagwati, J. :-"article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasona-bleness,which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential elements of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be "right and just and fair" and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. " ( 26. ) THE second authority cited by Mr. Mathur is the decision of the supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra ). It must be "right and just and fair" and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. " ( 26. ) THE second authority cited by Mr. Mathur is the decision of the supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra ). In this case, one of the questions which was to be decided by the Supreme Court was whether the remedy provided under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is illusory for the reason that it is available only after the action is taken under Section 13 (4)of the Act and the appeal provided for under Section 17 of the Act was maintainable only on deposit of 75% of the claim raised in the notice of demand and the Supreme Court held that the condition of pre-deposit of 75% of the claim raised in the notice of demand is untenable and arbitrary and therefore sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act was violative of Article 14 of the constitution. Para 64 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mardia chemicals Ltd. as reported in the SCC at Page 354 is extracted hereinbelow:- "the condition of pre-deposit in the present case is bad rendering the remedy illusory on the ground that : (i) it is imposed while approaching the adjudicating authority of the first instance, not in appeal, (ii) there is no determination of the amount due as yet, (iii)the secured assets or their management with transferable interest is already taken over and under control of the secured creditor, (iv)no special reason for double security in respect of an amount yet to be determined and settled, (v) 75% of the amount claimed by no means would be a meager amount, and (vi) it will leave the borrower in a position where it would not be possible for him to raise any funds to make deposit of 75% of the undetermined demand. Such conditions are not alone onerous and oppressive but also unreasonable and arbitrary. Therefore, in our view, sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act is unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. " ( 27. ) THE contention of Mr. Such conditions are not alone onerous and oppressive but also unreasonable and arbitrary. Therefore, in our view, sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act is unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. " ( 27. ) THE contention of Mr. Singh, on the other hand, is that a provision in an Act made by the Legislature cannot be struck down by the Court as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution only on the ground that such a provision is unreasonable and arbitrary. The first authority cited by Mr. Singh in support of his contention is the judgment of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. , as He then was, in delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D. T. C. Mazdoor Congress and others (supra ). In Para 120 of the judgment as reported at Page 678 of the SCC, Justice mukharji has observed:- "it is true that judicial jealousy of legislature in law making has long been outdrawn, but the strict construction remains still an established rule. It is generally accepted principle that judges in interpreting statutes, should give effect to the legislators intent. By doing so, the Courts do recognize their subordinate position and their obligation to help the legislature to achieve its purpose. " ( 28. ) THE second authority cited by Mr. Singh in support of his contention is the judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. Mcdowell and Co. and others (supra ). The relevant passage from Para 45 of the judgment as reported at Page 1641 of the AIR is quoted hereinbelow:- "no enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act. An enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that Court thinks it unjustified. The Parliament and the Legislature, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them. The Court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom. An enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that Court thinks it unjustified. The Parliament and the Legislature, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them. The Court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom. " B. P. Jeewan Redy, J. delivering the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme court has thus taken a view that no enactment can be struck down by saying that it is arbitrary and unreasonable and some other constitution infirmity has to be found in an Act and the reason given by him is that the legislature composed as it is of the representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good or bad for them and Court cannot sit on judgment over its wisdom. In the same judgment, however, Redy, J. has also observed that the Court can strike down an enactment if it affects the fundamental rights and other constitutional rights and does not lay down a reasonable and fair procedure. Relevant portion of the judgment at Page 1642 of the AIR is quoted hereinbelow:- "it is one thing to say that a restriction imposed upon a fundamental right can be struck down if it is disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable and quite another thing to say that the Court can strike down enactment if it thinks it unreasonable, unnecessary or unwarranted. Now, coming to the decision in Ananthi Ammal (1995 air SCW 355), we are of the opinion that it does not lay down a different proposition. It was an appeal from the decision of the madras High Court striking down the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 as violative of Articles 14,19 and 300-A of the Constitution. On a review of the provisions of the Act, this Court found that it provided a procedure which was substantially unfair to the owners of the land as compared to the procedure prescribed by the Land Acquisition Act, insofar as section 11 of the Act provided for payment of compensation in instalments if it exceeded rupees two thousand. " ( 29. ) THE aforesaid discussion of the authorities cited by Mr. Mathur and mr. " ( 29. ) THE aforesaid discussion of the authorities cited by Mr. Mathur and mr. Singh would establish that when a provision in an Act made by the legislature affects some other constitutional right, such as the right to life and liberty granted under Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution and the right to property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has insisted that the procedure by which the fundamental or other constitutional right is sought to be affected should be reasonable and fair and not arbitrary and in case such a provision made in the Act by the legislature does not satisfy the test of a reasonable or fair procedure, the Court can strike down such a provision as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because Article 14 is the embodiment of reasonableness and is the negation of all arbitrariness. On the other hand, if a provision in the Act made by the legislature does not affect any fundamental or constitutional right, the Court cannot substitute its own wisdom for that of the legislature and hold that the provision is unreasonable and arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because under the scheme of our Constitution the representatives of the people in the Legislature are presumed to know the needs of the people and decide what is good or bad for them and the legislature is vested with the power to make the law and the role of the Court is to find out whether the provision made in the law by the legislature was within the competence of the legislature and does not violate any fundamental right or any other constitutional and interpret the law according to well settled principles of statutory interpretation. ( 30. ) KEEPING the aforesaid propositions of law in mind, we may now proceed to examine whether Sections 17-A and 18 of the Adhiniyam are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 30. ) KEEPING the aforesaid propositions of law in mind, we may now proceed to examine whether Sections 17-A and 18 of the Adhiniyam are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. Sections 17-A and 18 of the Adhiniyam as amended by Act No. 22 of 2005, as extracted herein below:- "17-A. Constitution of Committee.- (1) The State Government shall constitute a committee consisting of the following, namely:- (a) Mayor of the Municipal Corporation or President of the municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat, as the case may be, which wholly or partly fall within the planning area; (b) President of the Zila Panchayat which wholly or partly fall within the planning area; (c) Members of Parliament representing constituencies which wholly or partly fall within the planning area; (d) All members of the State Legislative Assembly representing the constituencies which wholly or partly fall within the planning area; (e) Chairman of the Town and Country Development authority, or Special Area Development Authority, if any, which wholly or partly fall within the planning area; (f) President of the Janpad Panchayat which wholly or partly fall within the planning area; (g) Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats which wholly or partly fall within the planning area; (h) Other persons not exceeding seven to represent specific interests to be nominated by the State Government; (i) An officer not below the rank of Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning to be nominated by the Director, who shall be the Convener of the Committee; (2) The Committee constituted under sub-section (1), shall hear the objections after publication of the draft development plan under Section 18 and suggest modifications or alternations, if any, to the Director. (3) The Convener of the Committee shall record in writing all the suggestions, modifications and alterations recommended by the committee under sub-section (2) and thereafter forward his report to the Director. 18. (3) The Convener of the Committee shall record in writing all the suggestions, modifications and alterations recommended by the committee under sub-section (2) and thereafter forward his report to the Director. 18. Publication of draft development plan.- (1) The Director shall publish the draft development plan prepared under Section 14 in such manner as may be prescribed together with a notice of the preparation of the draft development plan and the place or the places where the copies may be inspected, inviting objections and suggestions in writing from any person with respect thereto, within thirty days from the date of communication of such notice, such notice shall specify in regard to the draft development plan, the following particulars, namely :- (1) the existing land use maps; (i-a) the natural hazard prone areas with the description of natural hazards; (ii) a narrative report, supported by maps and charts, explaining the provisions of the draft development plan; (iii) the phasing of implementation of the draft development plan as suggested by the Director; (iv) the provisions for enforcing the draft development plan and stating the manner in which permission for development may be obtained; (v) approximate cost of land acquisition for public purposes and the cost of works involved in the implementation of the plan. (2) The committee constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 17-A shall not later than ninety days after the publication of the notice under sub-section (1), consider all the objections and suggestions as may be received within the period specified in the notice under sub-section (1) and shall after giving reasonable opportunity to all persons affected thereby of being heard, suggest such modifications in the draft development plan as it may consider necessary, and submit, not later than six months after the publication of the draft development plan, the plan as so modified, to the Director together with all connected documents plans, maps and charts. (3) The Director shall, within 30 days of the receipt of the plan and other documents from the committee submit all the documents and plans so received along with his comments, to the State ] government. " ( 31. (3) The Director shall, within 30 days of the receipt of the plan and other documents from the committee submit all the documents and plans so received along with his comments, to the State ] government. " ( 31. ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 17-A quoted above provides that the state Government shall constitute a Committee consisting of the Mayor of the municipal Corporation or President of the Municipal Council as the case may be, President of the Zila Panchayat, Members of Parliament representing constituencies, all members of the State Legislative Assembly representing the constituencies, Chairman of the Town and Country Development Authority or special Area Development Authority, if any, President of the Janpad panchayat, Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayat which wholly or partly fall within the planning area and other persons not exceeding seven to represent specific interests to be nominated by the State Government and an officer not below the rank of Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning to be nominated by the director, who shall be the convener of the Committee. For the Indore Planning area, the State Government has constituted a Committee of as many as 91 persons under sub-section (1) of Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam by order dated 13-7-2005. According to Mr. Mathur, such a Committee of 91 persons who have no knowledge expertise or experience in town and country planning cannot properly perform the tasks of hearing and deciding objections to the draft development plan and of suggesting modifications or alterations to the draft development plan assigned to the Committee under sub-section (2) of Section 17-A and sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Adhiniyam. According to Mr. Mathur, since Sections 17-A and 18 of the Adhiniyam also do not state who will be the Chairman of such a Committee of 91 members and what would be the quorum of its meeting, the Committee also cannot perform the solemn task of hearing and deciding objections and suggesting modifications or alterations to the draft development plan. According to Mr. Mathur, since Sections 17-A and 18 of the Adhiniyam also do not state who will be the Chairman of such a Committee of 91 members and what would be the quorum of its meeting, the Committee also cannot perform the solemn task of hearing and deciding objections and suggesting modifications or alterations to the draft development plan. According to Mr. R. N. Singh, on the other hand, the legislature has ensured representation of all local bodies of the planning area in the Committee to give effect to the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution and the legislature has not stated who will be the Chairman of the Committee and what would be the quorum of its meeting and left these aspects to be deiced by the Committee. He submitted that the Court cannot strike down Sections 17-A and 18 of the Adhiniyam because no experts are members of the Committee and no Chairman or quorum has been provided for the meetings of the Committee as these are matters for the legislature to decide. ( 32. ) ON a bare reading of sub-section (2) of Section 17-A and sub -. section (2) of Section 18 of the Adhiniyam quoted above we find that the committee constituted under sub-section (1) will have to consider all the objections and suggestions as may be received on the draft development plan and after giving reasonable opportunity to all persons affected thereby of being heard, suggest such modifications or alternations to the draft development plan as it thinks fit. The Legislature has thus provided in sub-section (2) of Section 17-A and sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Adhiniyam a reasonable opportunity to all persons affected by the draft development plan to make their objections in writing as well as to be heard because the development plan when finally made and published and on coming into force will affect the rights of the persons living and having property in the planning area guaranteed under articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution. Thus, sub-section (2) of Section 17-A and sub- section (2) of Section 18 of the Adhiniyam provide a reasonable and fair procedure. ( 33. Thus, sub-section (2) of Section 17-A and sub- section (2) of Section 18 of the Adhiniyam provide a reasonable and fair procedure. ( 33. ) THIS reasonable and fair procedure in Sections 17-A and 18 of the adhiniyam is not rendered illusory by absence of provisions therein regarding who would be the Chairman and what would be the quorum in the meetings of the Committee. Chairman in a meeting of the Committee is of course required for ensuring that the meeting of the Committee is conducted in a orderly manner and not in a chaotic way but in the absence of any provision in Sections 17-A 1 and 18 of the Adhiniyam regarding who will be the Chairman, the Committee can always decide who will preside over a particular meeting. Similarly, in the absence of any provision in Sections 17-A and 18 of the Adhiniyam regarding the quorum at the meeting, in case at a meeting of the Committee it is found that very few members of Committee are present, the Committee can always decide to adjourn the meeting for hearing to some other date. Similarly, absence of experts in the field of town and country planning in the Committee does not render the reasonable and fair procedure in Sections 17-A and 18 of the adhiniyam illusory. We are thus of the view that Sections 17-A and 18 of the adhiniyam provide a reasonable and fair procedure in the matter of preparation of a development plan which will affect the rights of persons living and having property in the planning area and cannot be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 34. We are thus of the view that Sections 17-A and 18 of the adhiniyam provide a reasonable and fair procedure in the matter of preparation of a development plan which will affect the rights of persons living and having property in the planning area and cannot be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 34. ) FURTHER, if the legislature has in its wisdom decided not have any experts in the committee but to have only representatives of the local bodies and the people of the plan area in the committee constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam, the Court cannot strike down Sections 17-A and 18 of the Adhiniyam as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution because under Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution, the State Legislature has been empowered to make any law for the territory of State subject to provisions in the Constitution and the function of the Court is to examine whether the law so made by the State Legislature violates any provision of the constitution and not to substitute its own wisdom in law making for that of the state Legislature which consisting as it is of the representatives of the people is presumed to know what the people really want. The provisions of Sections 17-A and 18 of the Adhiniyam may not have been made to give effect to Parts ix and IX -A of the Constitution and Article 243-W of the Constitution may only be an enabling provision, as submitted by Mr. Mathur, but it is for the legislature to decide what provisions of a law should be and if the legislature has decided that a Committee comprising of representative of the local bodies and the representatives of the people should hear the objections to the draft development plan and suggest modifications or alterations to the draft development plan and suggest modifications or alterations to the draft development plan and accordingly has made provision in Sections 17-A and 18 of the Adhiniyam, the Court cannot declare the sections as ultra vires unless it finds that the provisions therein contravene the provisions of the Constitution. ( 35. ) IN State of Kerala and others Vs. ( 35. ) IN State of Kerala and others Vs. Unni and others (supra), the supreme Court has held that if a provision of an Act or a Rule is found to be ex -facie unreasonable and unworkable, the Court would not hesitate to strike down such provisions in the Act or the Rule, but the Supreme Court has also held in this decision that where two interpretations are possible on the workability or unworkability of a statute, the one which leads to workability of the statute must be preferred to the one which leads to unworkability of the statute. Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam does provide for a Committee of large number of persons to hear the objections to the draft development plan and to suggest modifications and alterations to the draft development plan and sections 17-A and 18 of the adhiniyam do not provide who will be the Chairman of the Committee and what would be the quorum of the meeting of the committee while hearing such objections or making such suggestions but the fact that a Committee is a large one and Sections 17-A and 18 do not indicate who will be the Chairman and what would be the quorum of the Committee does not make the provisions of Sections 17-A and Section 18 of the Adhiniyam to be totally unworkable. It is for the members of the Committee constituted under section 17-A of the Adhiniyam to make the provision of Section 17-A and 18 of the Adhiniyam workable by deciding who would preside over a meeting and whether to proceed with hearing of the objections and making suggestions for modifications and alterations of the draft development plan at a meeting if the number of representatives who are present at the meeting in the Committee is small. Hence, the provisions of Sections 17-A and 18 of the Adhiniyam cannot be held to be unreasonable or unworkable and violative of Article 14 of the constitution. ( 36. ) MR. Hence, the provisions of Sections 17-A and 18 of the Adhiniyam cannot be held to be unreasonable or unworkable and violative of Article 14 of the constitution. ( 36. ) MR. Mathur next submitted that the records produced by the State government will show that during the proceedings of the Committee during 25-9-2006 to 3-10-2006, on some day one member was there, on some other days, three members were there and on some other days six members were there and the proceeding will further show that those who were present on 25-9-2006 were not present on 26-9-2006 and those who were present on 26-9-2006 were not present on 25-9-2006 and therefore the same persons did not hear the objections and suggestions on different dates of the meeting and the hearing was totally biased and cannot be said to be a hearing at all. The records produced before us do not indicate the Members of the Committee who were present at the hearing on different dates from 25-9-2006 to 3-10-2006 and what transpired at the meetings on different dates during 25-9-2006 to 3-10-2006. These facts have also not been stated in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and as a result the respondents have not had the opportunity to file a reply on these facts. Since these facts have not been stated in the writ petition supported by affidavit nor have been dealt with in the reply filed by the respondents, it will not be proper for us to express any opinion on the contention of Mr. Mathur that there was no proper and fair hearing on the objections and suggestions in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 17-A and sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the adhiniyam. But the records produced before us do show that various objections and suggestions to the Draft Development Plan have been considered and decisions of the Committee thereon have been recorded. In any case, if a party makes a grievance before the Court that his objection or suggestion has not been considered or that he was not heard, the Court can consider such a grievance separately, but the provisions of Section 17-A and Section 18 cannot be held to be unreasonable and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 37. ) MR. ( 37. ) MR. Mathur finally submitted that under the unamended section 20 of the Adhiniyam, the Director was entrusted the responsibility to prepare a zoning plan, but under the amended Section 20 of the Adhiniyam, the power to prepare the zoning plan has been conferred on the Local Authority. He pointed out that Section 2 (k) of the Adhiniyam defines a "local authority" to mean a municipal Corporation constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Municipal corporation Act, 1956, a Municipal Council or a Nagar Panchayat constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 and a Gram Panchayat constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. He submitted that if the zoning plan is prepared by the Municipal Corporation, municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat and the Panchayats, there will be total confusion and this will lead to violation of the rights of the persons under Article 21 of the Constitution and therefore Section 20 of the Adhiniyam is unreasonable, arbitrary, unworkable and vague and should be declared ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 38. ) MR. Singh, on the other hand, submitted that the local authorities have been involved in the process of preparation of a development plan in conformity with the Scheme as envisaged in Parts IX and IX -A of the constitution of India and such local authorities can take assistance of the directorate of Town and Country Planning for the purpose of preparation of zoning plan and the legislature is within its legislative competence to entrust the work of making a zoning plan to the local authorities. ( 39. ) WE fail to see why there should be any confusion if the local authority undertakes the work of making the zoning plan. The planning are constituted under Section 13 of the Adhiniyam may include area of a Municipal corporation, an area of a Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat and areas of gram Panchayats and for their respective areas the Municipal Corporation, municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat would make the zoning plans. Further, a zoning plan only enlarges the details of land use as indicated in the development plan and these local authorities will prepare the zoning plans for their respective areas in accordance with the development plan finally prepared, approved and published by the State Government under section 19 of the Adhiniyam. The confusion apprehended by Mr. Further, a zoning plan only enlarges the details of land use as indicated in the development plan and these local authorities will prepare the zoning plans for their respective areas in accordance with the development plan finally prepared, approved and published by the State Government under section 19 of the Adhiniyam. The confusion apprehended by Mr. Mathur, therefore, is misconceived and Section 20 of the Adhiniyam entrusting the power to prepare a zoning plan to the local authority cannot be held to be unworkable or unreasonable. If the legislature in its wisdom has decided to vest the power of preparing a zoning plan on the local authority, the Court cannot strike down the section unless it finds that Section 20 of the Adhiniyam is in conflict with any provision of the Constitution. ( 40. ) IN the result, we hold that the provisions of Sections 14,16,17-A, 18 (2) and 20 of the Adhiniyam are not ultra vires the Constitution as contended by the petitioner and the writ petition is disposed of in accordance with the observations made in this judgment and the interim order dated 10-10-2006 as modified by the order dated 30-11-2006 is vacated.