Supreme Court Quashes High Court Order Restricting Public Access to Private Road: PMRDA vs. Prakash Harkachand Parakh (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 10 March 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 143

Judges: Indu Malhotra, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can a High Court, in an interim order, modify an order passed by a planning authority regarding public access to a road? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Pune Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (PMRDA) and a private land owner. The core issue was whether the High Court was justified in restricting public access to a road that the PMRDA had ordered to be kept open for public use. The Supreme Court bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute regarding a 12-meter wide road within a residential project developed by the 1st respondent, Prakash Harkachand Parakh, on land located in Pune. The 1st respondent had obtained permission for non-agricultural use of the land on 25th September 2012, with a condition that the roads within the layout should be kept open for public use and for use by neighboring landowners. Subsequently, the 1st respondent submitted a revised layout plan, which was approved on 29th December 2014/24th February 2015, with a similar condition regarding public access to the roads.

The Pune Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (PMRDA), the appellant, directed the 1st respondent to open the 12-meter road for public access on 4th September 2018, following objections from Shewalewadi Gram Panchayat (respondent no. 3). After a review and hearing, PMRDA reiterated this order on 18th January 2019, stating that the road should be kept open for the general public and neighboring landowners. The 1st respondent challenged this order in the High Court, which led to the interim order that is the subject of this appeal.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The 1st respondent challenged the PMRDA’s order of 4th September 2018 in Writ Petition No. 11775/2018, which was disposed of with a direction to grant a fair hearing to the 1st respondent. After the hearing, PMRDA passed another order on 18th January 2019, reiterating that the road should be open to the public. This order was then challenged by the 1st respondent in Writ Petition No. 8242 of 2019 before the High Court. The High Court, pending the writ petition, passed an interim order on 4th October 2019, modifying the PMRDA’s order. The High Court’s interim order imposed time restrictions on public access to the road, allowing it only between 5:30 am and 8:30 pm, and also permitted the 1st respondent to install gates and security personnel. The PMRDA appealed this interim order to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the following legal provisions:

• Section 18 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town and Country Planning Act, 1966: This section deals with the constitution of the planning authority. The Pune Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (PMRDA) was constituted under this provision.
• Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: This section pertains to the grant of permission for non-agricultural use of land. The 1st respondent obtained permission under this section to develop the residential project.

The core issue revolves around the conditions imposed while granting permission for non-agricultural use and the subsequent orders passed by the planning authority to enforce these conditions. These conditions mandated that the roads and open spaces within the project should be accessible to the public and neighboring landowners.

Arguments

The learned counsel for the parties made submissions on the merits of the writ petition and the legality of the order dated 18th January 2019. However, the Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of these arguments as the writ petition was still pending before the High Court. The arguments were primarily focused on the interim order passed by the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues for determination in this order, as it was primarily concerned with the legality of the interim order passed by the High Court. The main issue was whether the High Court could modify the order of the planning authority through an interim order.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The decision is primarily based on the principle that an interim order should not grant the final relief and that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the planning authority’s order.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the High Court’s interim order dated 4th October 2019. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying the planning authority’s order through an interim arrangement. The Supreme Court clarified that the writ petition should be decided independently without being influenced by any observations made in the present order.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that an interim order should not grant the final relief. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s interim order, which restricted public access to the road, effectively modified the final order of the planning authority. This was seen as an overreach of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The court’s reasoning was based on the principle that an interim order should not grant the final relief. The court noted that the High Court’s interim order effectively modified the final order of the planning authority. The court observed that the High Court’s modification of the PMRDA’s order was considered an overreach of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court’s interim order effectively granted the final relief by restricting public access to the road. The Court stated, “It is well settled that by an interim order, even the final relief ordinarily should not be granted.” The Court also noted that the High Court’s order was not within the realm of power of judicial review to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court observed, “The nature of modification which has been made by the High Court vide order impugned dated 4th October, 2019 in the form of an ad-hoc interim arrangement, in our view, is exceeding its jurisdiction, and not within the realm of power of judicial review to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution.” The Supreme Court further clarified, “We make it clear that the Writ Petition No. 8242 of 2019 be decided independently without being influenced by the observations made by us in the present order on its own merits in accordance with law.”

Key Takeaways

• An interim order by a High Court should not grant the final relief sought in a writ petition.
• High Courts should be cautious in modifying orders of planning authorities through interim orders, especially when such modifications effectively decide the main issue.
• The power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution has limitations, and High Courts should not exceed their jurisdiction.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the Writ Petition No. 8242 of 2019 be decided independently by the High Court, without being influenced by the observations made in the Supreme Court’s order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court should not grant the final relief through an interim order and that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by modifying an order of a planning authority through an interim order. This judgment reinforces the principle that interim orders should maintain the status quo and not decide the main issue in a case. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in PMRDA vs. Prakash Harkachand Parakh quashed the High Court’s interim order, emphasizing that High Courts should not modify orders of planning authorities through interim measures that effectively decide the main issue. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the principles of judicial review and the limitations on interim orders.