Challenge to town planning provisions for lack of jurisdiction over metropolitan areas is misconceived and unsustainable.

The petitioners filed a writ petition in 2016 challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (the "Town Planning Act").

Specifically, they contested the authority of the Vadodara Urban Development Authority (VUDA) to notify the General Development Control Regulations (GDCR), 2006, arguing that such powers resided with the Metropolitan Planning Committee under the Gujarat Metropolitan Planning Committees Act, 2008.

The petitioners contended that since Vadodara exceeded a population of ten lakhs, it qualified as a "Metropolitan Area" under Article 243P(c) of the Constitution, thereby stripping the Town Planning Authority of its jurisdiction to prepare draft development plans.

1. Whether Sections 9, 11, 13, 22, and 23 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, are ultra vires the Constitution of India or inconsistent with the Gujarat Metropolitan Planning Committees Act, 2008.

2. Whether the preparation and publication of the Draft Development Plan and GDCR by the Urban Development Authority for a "Metropolitan Area" is illegal for lack of jurisdiction.

The court examined the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976, which consolidates laws relating to development plans and town planning schemes.

Gujarat Metropolitan Planning Committees Act, 2008, enacted pursuant to Article 243ZE and 243ZF of the Constitution of India.

The principle that the validity of a statutory provision cannot be challenged merely on the grounds of an alleged "wrong exercise of power" or "lack of jurisdiction" by an authority in a specific instance; rather, such specific administrative actions (like a specific Draft Plan) must be challenged directly.

The Court noted that while the petitioners challenged the statutory provisions (Sections 9, 11, 13, 22, and 23), their grievance was fundamentally about the exercise of power by VUDA over an area they claimed was a "Metropolitan Area".

The Court reasoned that these sections constitute the "heart and soul" of the Town Planning Act, as they provide the essential framework for preparing and submitting development plans.

It held that a challenge to the validity of these statutes is "misconceived" when the actual dispute pertains to whether a specific authority had jurisdiction over a specific geographic area at a specific time.

Furthermore, the challenge to the GDCR 2006 was rendered largely infructuous as it had been superseded by the GDCR 2017.

The Court clarified that if the petitioners believed the Urban Development Authority lacked jurisdiction over a Metropolitan Area, the appropriate remedy was to challenge the specific Draft Development Plan or GDCR prepared by that authority, rather than the enabling statutory provisions themselves.

All interim reliefs were vacated.