Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the public interest litigations challenging the State of Maharashtra and MCGM’s decision to establish the Balasaheb Thackeray Memorial at the Mayor’s Bungalow, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai. The Court held that the establishment of the Memorial is a policy decision, falls under public purpose, and does not warrant judicial interference since there was no violation of statutory procedures under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act or arbitrariness in amending Section 92 of the MMC Act to facilitate the lease of land to the Trust. The petitions were dismissed without costs.
Facts
The State of Maharashtra decided to commemorate late Balasaheb Thackeray by setting up a memorial in Mumbai, forming a High Power Committee that evaluated eight sites and recommended the Mayor’s Bungalow for the memorial. A government resolution on 27 September 2016 approved the site, the creation of a Trust, and procedures began to change the reservation and zoning of the land from Green Zone to Residential Zone, amending Section 92 of the MMC Act to enable leasing to the Trust at a nominal rent of Re. 1 per annum. The Trust was formed with designated trustees, including family members and government officials, and the work on the memorial proceeded, reaching near completion by 2025. Multiple PILs challenged the decision, alleging procedural violations, misuse of public property, and the arbitrariness of amendments facilitating the Trust’s lease.
Issues
- Whether the establishment of the Balasaheb Thackeray Memorial at the Mayor’s Bungalow is violative of statutory provisions or arbitrary.
- Whether the amendment to Section 92 of the MMC Act enabling a nominal rent lease was arbitrary.
- Whether the modification of the development plan and change of land reservation violated the MRTP Act procedures.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that while they did not oppose the memorial in principle, selecting the Mayor’s Bungalow as the site was arbitrary and involved procedural violations. They argued that the land was reserved as a Green Zone and that the change to Residential Zone through notifications violated the MRTP Act since public consultation was inadequate. They challenged the composition of the Trust as politically biased, raising concerns that the land was leased virtually free, alleging misuse of valuable public land, and cited the illegality of using the Municipal Gymkhana for the Mayor’s residence to facilitate the memorial.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that the decision to set up the memorial was a policy matter, in line with public purpose, and that all procedures under the MRTP Act were duly followed with invitations for objections and suggestions. The Trust and MCGM argued that the modification of zoning and the label change on the development plan followed due process, citing that the Trust was lawfully constituted and included government officials to ensure oversight. They submitted that the amendment to Section 92 of the MMC Act was within the legislative competence of the State and not manifestly arbitrary.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed that the establishment of a memorial to a leader of public significance constitutes a public purpose and falls within the domain of policy decisions, which courts do not ordinarily interfere with unless there is illegality or constitutional infirmity. It held that the procedural requirements under the MRTP Act, including consultation and publication, were followed. The Court noted that amending Section 92 of the MMC Act to insert Clause (dd-1) enabling lease of the Mayor’s Bungalow for the memorial at nominal rent was within the State’s legislative competence and not manifestly arbitrary, relying on principles from Shayara Bano v. Union of India.
Precedent Analysis
- Kanaiyalal Maneklal Chinai v. State of Gujarat: Held that memorials to national leaders constitute a public purpose.
- Ashok Maruti Rawoot v. State of Maharashtra: Recognised the authority’s discretion in choosing sites for memorials.
- Annarao Baloba Gaikwad v. Solapur Municipal Corporation: Upheld land acquisition for memorials as a public purpose.
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India: Established that statutes can only be struck down for manifest arbitrariness if shown to be capricious or irrational.
- State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash and State of UP v. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh: Held that policy decisions are not subject to judicial review unless unconstitutional.
These precedents guided the court’s conclusion that establishing the memorial at the chosen site did not warrant interference.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that:
- The selection of the Mayor’s Bungalow followed a well-considered decision-making process by the High Power Committee and State Government.
- The procedural requirements under the MRTP Act, including inviting objections, were complied with, and the label and zoning changes were lawfully effected.
- The Trust’s composition, including family members, was not arbitrary given the nature of the memorial, and the lease at nominal rent for a public purpose did not constitute misuse of public property.
- The memorial was nearly complete, and there was no reason to interfere at this stage.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court dismissed the PILs, holding that no valid grounds existed to interfere with the State’s decision to establish the Balasaheb Thackeray Memorial at the Mayor’s Bungalow, as the process complied with statutory procedures, the purpose was public, and the decision fell within the State’s policy domain.
Implications
- Reaffirms that memorials to public figures constitute a public purpose, justifying the State’s actions in leasing land at concessional rates.
- Clarifies the limits of judicial review over policy decisions in memorial establishment.
- Confirms that procedural compliance under the MRTP Act is sufficient to effect zoning and label changes for public projects.
Brief on Cases Referred
- Kanaiyalal Maneklal Chinai: Establishing a memorial to Mahatma Gandhi is a public purpose.
- Ashok Maruti Rawoot: Location choice for memorials is a matter of authority’s discretion.
- Annarao Baloba Gaikwad: Constructing memorials to national heroes is a public purpose.
- Shayara Bano: Explains the test for manifest arbitrariness in statutory challenges.
- State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash and State of UP v. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh: Establish that courts will not interfere with policy decisions absent constitutional violation.
FAQs
1. Why did the Bombay High Court dismiss challenges to the Balasaheb Thackeray Memorial?
Because the memorial serves a public purpose, procedural norms were followed, and the State’s decision was a policy matter outside judicial interference.
2. Can the State lease public land at nominal rent for memorials?
Yes, if it serves a public purpose and follows statutory procedures, as upheld under the MMC Act.
3. Is changing the zoning from Green Zone to Residential Zone for a memorial valid?
Yes, provided procedures under the MRTP Act are followed, as confirmed in this judgment.
