Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
The appellants, two of whom are social workers and one is a political
activist, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for striking
down various provisions of Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority
Act, 1974, Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment)
Act, 1971, Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and Electricity (Supply)
Act, 1948 on the ground that the same are violative of Articles 243G, 243N, 243ZE
and 243ZF of the Constitution of India. They further prayed for restraining the State
of Maharashtra and Maharashtra State Electricity Board from taking action in
furtherance of the provisions of which constitutional validity was challenged.
By the impugned order, the High Court summarily dismissed the writ
petition by observing that it is only academic and the writ petitioners do not have
any personal
...2/-
interest in the matter and their personal right is not affected in any manner. Review
applications filed by the petitioners were also dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the writ
petition did raise important questions of law and the High Court was not justified in
summarily dismissing the same on the grounds enumerated above. In our view, the
High Court should have disposed of the writ petition on merits.
Accordingly, the civil appeals are allowed, impugned orders are set aside
and the matter is remanded to the High Court to consider the writ petition afresh on
merits after giving opportunity to the respondents to file counter affidavit thereto and
hearing all the parties.
[G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, August 08, 2008.