Struggling with inadequate public and off-street parking, Navi Mumbai may get better facilities in the next one year. The Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) has been asked to conduct a survey of the existing parking area and its additional needs.
A report must be prepared within the next four months. Based on the report, the NMMC and the state government need to “take appropriate steps” by taking recourse to the procedure prescribed by the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act.
Authorities to make amendments
The authorities have also been asked to consider appropriate amendments in the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations (UDCPR) which was notified on December 2, 2020 for its municipal limits. These directives have been handed out by the Bombay High Court. The entire exercise must be completed by the state government, the NMMC and all other authorities or bodies concerned within 12 months.
The directives were given after hearing a public interest litigation petition by Navi Mumbai resident Sandeep Thakur, seeking implementation of earlier court orders to the NMMC and government to take steps to provide adequate public and off-street parking in the satellite city.
Advantages & Disadvantages of 2020 UDCPR
Thakur pointed out that the municipal corporation had filed affidavits in his previous three PILs assuring to increase the parking requirements by modifying the existing regulations relating to parking norms after the approval of the state. However, the assurance has been given a go-by while promulgating the impugned UDCPR, alleged Thakur. He has questioned the 2020 UDCPR, stating that the same is “absolutely arbitrary” and it attempts to “nullify and subvert” earlier high court orders.
The NMMC opposed the plea, contending that the provisions of UDCPR are a piece of subordinate legislation and unless the said provisions are shown to be manifestly arbitrary or against any provisions of the Constitution or any other law, including MRTP (Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act), it cannot be legally struck down. The scope of judicial review or judicial scrutiny of such subordinate legislation is limited.
Appreciating Thakur’s strife for a public cause, the court said, “We also observe that we have issued the aforesaid directions so as to ensure that the spirit and zeal shown by the petitioner for the public cause of having better and adequate spaces do not die.”
