FORWARD CONSTRUCTION CO. & ORS. ETC. ETC.versusPRABHAT MANDAL. (REGD.) ANDHERI & ORS. ETC. ETC.

        766



A
                    FORWARD CONSTRUCTION CO. & ORS. ETC. ETC.
                                         v.
                 PRABHAT MANDA!. (REGD.) ANDliERI & ORS. ETC. ETC,

                                NOVEMBER 26, 1985

B
               [R.S.PATHAK, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.]

              Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act & Building Regula-
        tions - Regulation 3, Proviso - "Change of user" - Meaning of.

              Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, s.11, Explanations IV, VI
        and s.91 - Principle of res-judicata - Applicability to public
c       interest litigation - "Public right" - Meaning of.

             Public Interest Litigation - Res-judicata - Principle of -
        Applicability to such litigation.

              Words & Phrases - "Change" and     "Public right 11    -   Meaning
        of - S.11, Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
D
               Under the development plan for Bombay a plot of land was
        reserved for a bus depot of the Bombay Electricity Supply &
        Transport Undertaking. The BEST Collllllittee passed a Resolution on
        18th January, 1982 approving a proposal under which a part of the
        plot was to be used for construction of two buildings that will
E       augment the income of the Corporation which could be used for the
        purpose ot construction of staff quarters. Under the proposal the
        BEST would, on the one hand get a cash amount of Rs.99.0 lacs in
        the forms of non-refundable premilllll from the builder in addition
        to the regular income from the tenants of the two buildings and
        on the other hand it would not be required to make any capital
F       expenditure for the construction of the project. Thereafter, an
        advertisement came to be published in newspapers inviting offers
        from the interested parties to develop the property. In addition
        to the said advertisement, notices were also forwarded to 22
        well-known builders out of whom 12 builders purchased the tender
        forms. Pursuant to the advertisement and the notices, two tenders
    G   were received out of which one wss sent by respondent 7, Forward
        Construction Company and another by Deep Construction. The tender
        of respondent 7 being higher than that of Deep Construction, was
        accepted by the BEST Collllllittee on 31st March 1982.

              One Mr. Thakkar filed writ petition before the Bombay High
    H   Court challenging the right of the BEST to use the land for a
        purpose different from the one for which it had been reserved and
               FORWARD CONST, CO, v. PRABHAT MANDAL              767
                                                                        A

desiguated under the development plan as well as the town
planning scheme on the ground that it had no right. to use it for
co11111ercial purpose. The right of the BEST to enter into a
contract with the builder was also challenged. A single Judge
dismissed the petition holding: (1) that the substantial portion        B
of the acquired plot was being utilised for a purpose for which
it was acquired and the co11111ercial use to which the small portion
was being put would substantially augment the coffers of the
Corporation for the benefit of the public at large; (2) that the
value charged by the BEST for allowing use of its property was
not grossly inadequate and that sufficient publicity was given          c
before inviting offers; and after having rejected the various
pleas taken by the petitioner in the case, he observed that the
petitioner was not an independent-minded citizen solely inspired
by the laudable motive of protecting public interest and that the
allegations in the petition indicated that he had been set up by
a disgruntled builder who purchased the tender document but did         D
not give an offer. The matter was taken up in appeal but the
Division Bench dismissed the same after heari"!1 all the parties.

      After the dismissal of the aforesaid appeal, respondents
Nos. l to 6 in civil appeal no. 2311, filed a similar petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was            E
s111111111rily dismissed by a Single Judge. However, the appeal filed
by the respondents was allowed by a Division Bench which issued a
writ of mandanus directing appellants l to 4 in civil appeal
No. 23ll, not to use the plot reserved for BEST bus depot for
co11111ercial purpoae or for any purpose other than the purpose for
which the said plot of land was reserved. The plea of res-
judicata was rejected for two reasons, namely; (1) that in the          F
earlier writ petition the validity of the permis~ion granted
under Rule 4(a)(i) of the Development Control Rules was not in
issue; and (2) that the earlier writ petition £iled by Thakkar
was not a bona fide one inaslllllch as he w.:._ put up by some
disgruntled builder. The appellant's review petition also failed.
                                                                        G
      Allowing the appeals     and dismissing the special leave
petition,

      llHUI: l(i) The High Court was not justified in allowing the
writ petition only on the basis of the proviso to Building Regu-
lation No.3. The proviso to Building Regulation No.3 requires
                                                                        H
that the change of user of the sanctioned plan can be made only
after the modif icat!on of the development plan. 1be key word in
this regulation is 'change'. The general meaning of the word
    768                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS   [1985] SUPP, 3 S.C,R,


A   'clumge' is to make or become different, to transform or cover,
    1£ the user was to be completely or substantially changed only
    then the prior modification of the development plan was
    necessary.

          In the instant case, the user of the plot has not been
B   changed. lt has been used for a bus depot combined with a
    comercial use to augment the income of the Corpore.tion for
    public purpose. In this view of the connotation of the word
    'clumge' the proviso has no application to the present case.
    [784 D; 785 A-<:J

          l(ii) lt cannot be said that the plot has been used fqr a
C   different purpose from the one for which it had been acquired.
    All that can be said is that a part of the plot ii being used for
    constructing two building• which would augment the income of
    Bombay ~nicipsl Corporation that could be utilised for the
    public purpose. The plot is being substantially used for the
    purpo1e for which it had been acquired. The additional use of the
    property will not make the use of the property for altogether a
D   different purpose. The purpose for which the plot was earmarked
    remains intact, that i1, for the construction of a bus depot. The
    other public interest sought to be achieved by the construction
    of the two buildings in addition to the bus depot is equally
    important. [781 ~; GJ

E         2(i) Explanation lV to s.11 C,P,C, provides that any matter
    which might and ought to have been made ground of defence or
    attack in such former suit shall be deemed to.have been a matter
    directly and substantially in i11ue in such suit. An adjudication
    is conclusive and final not only ae to the actual matter deter-
    mined but as to every other matter which the partiea might and
F   ought to have litigated and have had it decided aa incidential to
    or eHentially connected with the subject matter of the liti-
    gation and every matter coming within the legitimate purview of
    the original action both in reapect of the matter• of claim or
    defence. The principle underlying Explanation lV ia that where
    the partiea have had an opportunity of controverting a matter
G   that ahould be taken to be the 1ame thing aa if the matter had
    been actually controverted and decided. lt ia true that where a
    matter haa been constructively in iaaue, it cannot be aaid to
    have been actually heard and decided. lt could only be deemad to
    have been heard and decided. The High Court was therefore not
    tight in holding that the earlier jurlgment would not operate aa
H   rea-judicste aa one of the grounds taken in the present petition
    waa conilpicuous by its absence in the earlier petition, [779 E-G)
               FORWARD CONST. CO. v. PRABHAT MANDAL            769


      2(ii) It is only when the conditions of Explanation VI to       A
s.11 are satisfied that a decision in the litigation will bind
all persons interested in the right litigated and the onus of
proving the want of bona fides in respect of the previous
litigation is on the party seeking to avoid the decision. The
words "public right" have been added in Explanation VI in view of
the new s.91 C.P.C. and to prevent multiplicity of litigation in      B
respect of public right. [780 C]

      2(iii) It cannot be disputed that s.11 applies to public
interest litigation as well in view of Explanation VI but it DllSt
be proved that the previous litigation was the public interest
litigation not by way of a private grievance. It haa to be a bona     c
fide litigation in reapect of a right which is coDlllOn and is
agitated in collllllOn with others. [780 C-ll]

      In the instant caae, the High Court in the earlier writ
petition had recorded a finding that it was not a bona fide liti-
gation and that the petitioner in that caae had been put up by a      D
disgruntled builder. Therefore,_ this finding, excludes the appli-
cation of s.ll C.P.c. [780 E]

      3. Public interec ~ law activities at times champion one
public interest which clashes with another public interest thus
benefiting one segment of public at another's expense.                E

      In the instant caae, · the avowed function of the Corpora-
tion is the improvement of Greater Bombay. The plot in question
admittedly lies in a commercial zone and if any facilities are
given to the people of that locality providing for co11111ercial
offices those facilities would go towards the improvement of
Bombay. It cannot, therefore, be said that the transaction was        F
outside the Bombay Corporation Act. [781 F; 782 C-ll]

      4. If commercial activities are to be pin-pointed "in a
c00111ercial zone and for that purpose the Municipal Corporation
takes a step to provide accommodation for co11111ercial purposea it
cannot be said that the property of the Corporation was being         G
acquired or held for purposes other than the purposea of the Ac~.
[783 B]

      CQJJ 1 ns English Dictionary and Ozford   Dictionary referred


      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.    2310-2311   H
of 1984 etc.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.1983 of the Bombay
High Court in A. No. 644 of 1982 and o.s.w.P. No. 2412 of 1982.
         770              SUPREME COURT REPORTS      [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.


               Parimal Shroff, Arun K.Sinha, K.K. Singhvi, P,H, Parekh,
.A       M.K. Nesari and Miss Indu Malhotra for the Appellants.

              V,N. Ganpule, S. Naphade and Mrs.    Urmila Sirur for    the
         Respondents.

               The Judgment of the Court was delivered' by
B
               MISllA, J. The present connected appeals and the special
         leave petition to appeal are sequel to a public interest
         litigation and are directed against the judgment of the 'High
         Court of Bombay dated 14th November 1983 allowing a petition
         under Article 226 of the Constitution.
 c              Public interest litigation is a comparatively recent
         concept of litigation but it occupies aa important status in the
         new regime of public law in different legal systems. Uy it very
         nature the concept of public interest litigation is radically
         different from that off traditional private litigation. Ordinary
         traditional litigation is essentially of an adversary character
         where there is a dispute between the two litigating parties, one
 D
         making the claim of seeking relief against the other and the
         other opposing such claim or resisting such relief, While public
         interest litigation is brought before the Court not for the
         purpose of enforcing the right of one individual against another,
         as happens in the case of ordinary litigation, it is intended to
         prosecute and vindicate public interest which demands that
 E
         violation of constitutional or legal rights of a large number of
         people, who are poor, ignorant or socially and economically in
         disadvantaged position, should not go unnoticed, unredressed for
          that would be destructive of the rule of law. Rule of law does
         not mean protection to a fortunate few or that it should be
         allowed to be prosecuted by vested interest for protecting and
     F
         upholding the status-quo. The poor too have a civil and political
          right. Rule of standing evolved by Anglo Saxon jurisprudence that
          only a person wronged can sue for judicial redress may not hold
          good in the present setting. Therefore, new strategy has to be
          evolved so that justice become easily available to the lowly and
          the lost. Law is not a closed shop. Even under the old system it
     G
          was permissible for the next friend to move the court on behalf
          of a minor or a person under disability or a person under
          detention or in restraint. Public interest litigation seeks to
          further relax the rule on locus standi. This Court in S.P. Gupta
          v. Doion of India, [1982] 2 s.c.R. 365, dealing with the question
          of public interest litigation observed :
     H                                                                        I

                                                                              I
         FORWARD CONST. CO. v. PRABllAT MANDAL [MISRA, J:]     771


           "It may therefore now be taken as well established        A
           that where a legal injury is caused to a person or to
           a determinate class of persons by reason of violation
           of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is
           imposed in contravention of any conatitutional or
           legal provision or without authority of. law or any
           such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is     B
           threatened and such person or determ.tnate class of
           persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or dis-
           ability or socially or economically disadvantaged
           position, unable to approach the Court for relief, any
           member of public can maintain an application for an
           appropriate.direction, order or writ in the High Court    C
           under Article 226 and in case of breach of any funda-
           mental right of such person or determinate class of
           persons, in this Court under Article 32 seeking
           judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused
           to such person or determinate class of persons."
                                                                     D
The present is a typical case of public interest litigation and
arises in the follow~ng circumstances.

      The development plan for Bombay was sa.1ctioned by the State
Government on 8th August 1966 and the verified Andheri Town
Planning Scheme framed under the Maharashtra Regional Town           E
Planning Act, came into force, after the repeal of the Bombay
Town Planning Act, this effect from 7th January 1967 and the
Scheme was finally sanctioned on 11th June 1970. Under the
development plan final plot No. 14 was reserved for a bus depot
of the Bombay Electicity Supply and Transport Undertaking
(hereinafter referred to as the 'BEST'), owned and run by che
Bombay Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'BMC').     F

     The said plot originally belonged to one Amarsi and after a
prolonged litigation the said land admeasuring 4657.10 sq. mtrs.
was acquired wider the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 and the BMC through       the BEST had to pay a sum of
Rs. 35,00,000 as compensation pursuant to the award given by an      G
arbitrator appointed by consent of the parties and the BEST took
possession of the same on 18th February, 1978.

     It appears that the General Manager of the BEST Undertaking
laid before the BEST Committee a proposal in tds letter dated 4th
August, 1981. In his opinion of the BEST provided only a bus
depot on the said plot the total investment would be Rs.45,00,000    H
inclusive of the cost of the land and the return from the
    772               SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.

A   investment would be nothing except the rent from the canteen
    vendor. The General Manager, therefore, proposed to the said
    committee that if an additional investment of Rs.50,00,000 on the
    construction of two buildings was made, the BEST would get a
    return to the tune of Rs .8, SO, 000 per anmun. He referred to the
    two buildings as 'A' and 'B' on the plan which was annexed with
B   his letter. The 'A' building was to have five floors with the
    ground floor on stilts and building 'B' was to have a ground and
    two upper floors with a mezzanine floor and the first floor,
    Building 'B' was also partly to be on stilts to provide for car
    parking. The calculation•made by the General Manager was on the
    footing that a carpet area of 22,500 sq.ft, could be spared after
    meeting the needs of the BEST bus depot and that space could be
c   let out for offices and show rooms etc. from which the BEST could
    expect an overall minimum rent of Rs.3 per Sq. ft. exclusive of
    taxes resulting in a net profit of Rs.8.50 lacs per annum.

         It, however, appears that the Best Committee referred back
    the proposal of the 4th August, 1981 to the General Manager and
    he, in the light of discussions with the members of the BEST
D   Committee, put up two alternative proposals vide his letter dated
    17th September, 1981. The salient features of the first proposal
    were that offers from builders were to be invited by public
    advertisements for construction of the entire complex as per BEST
    plans and specifications by the builder at his own cost which was
    estimated at Rs.60.0 lacs. Under the said proposal the builder
E   was to make his own arrangements for finance and materials inclu-
    ding steel, cement etc. The proposal further indicated that as
    the builder's maximum investment would amount to Rs.159.0 lacs he
    may in lieu thereof be given a right to dispose of the property
    to the users of his own choice. Under that proposal the builder
    was to make an annual payment to the BEST to cover repairs, main-
F   tenance and other costs. The builder making the highest payment
    was to be selected and the premium was put at the rate of Rs.200
    to Rs.250 per sq. ft. of the available F.S.l. On that basis it
    was estimated that the floor space available being 39,592 sq.ft.,
    at the rate of Rs.200 to Rs.250 per sq.ft. a sum between Rs.79.0
    lacs to Rs.99.0 lacs could be received by BEST, in addition to
G   making a full-fledged bus depot free of cost. The General Manager
    in the said letter, however, also pointed out the draw-backs of
    his proposal and therefore an alternative suggestion was also
    made by him whereunder the BEST may invite offers directly from
    the prospective tenants for a period of 30 years at a time and
    after the expiry of 30 years the tenants were to have an
H   option of renewal for a further period of 30 years but at




                                                                         !'-
         FORWARD CONST• CO. v. PRABHAT HANDAL [MISRA, J.]     773


a revised rate to be fixed by the BEST taking into consideration     A
the prevailing market price. Under the alternative proposal a
premium of Rs.99.0 lacs was to be received directly from the
tenants and after deducting the cost of the whole complex, which
was expected to be Rs.60.0 lacs the BEST would get a net amount
of Rs. 39.0 lacs in addition to the revenue of Rs.8.46 lacs per
annum by way of rent or compensation from the tenants.               B

      The final proposal which, however, emerged as a result of
discussion with the BEST·Ccinnnittee was the one contained in the
letter of the General Manager to the BEST Connnittee dated 14th
January, 1982. Under this proposal the builder was to pay to the
BEST non~refundable premium at the rate of Rs.250 per sq.ft. of      C
 'FSI' allowed to be used. The builder was to construct at his
cost two buildings including the bus depot, yard concreting,
lighting etc. and hand them over free of cost to the BEST within
two years after entering into the contract and the plans and
specifications were to be given by the BEST. The builder was to
recommend tenants for 23500 sq.ft. carpet area and the BEST was      D
to grant lease to the tenants nominated by the builder subject to-
approval by the General Manager at the rate of Rs.1 per sq.ft. of
the carpet area. The lease was renewable for a further period of
30 years and that the rent was to be at the rate of Rs. 2 per
sq.ft.   The user was   to be such as was     allowed under the
development control rules. The builder was to pay the premium in     E
two instalments,  the first instalment of 50 per cent before
signing the agreement and the remaining 50 per cent within 18
months after the first payment but before the completion of the
project.

     The effect of this proposal was that the BEST would on the
one hand get a cash amount of Rs. 99. 0 lacs in the form of          F
non-refundable premium and on the other hand would not be
required to make any·capital expenditure for the construction of
the project. A net income of Rs.2.82 lacs per year for 30 years
amounting to Rs. 84. 60 lacs, and for the next 30 years at the
rate of Rs.5.64 lacs per year amounting to Rs.169.20 lacs would
be earned by the BEST. Under the said project the BMC or the BEST    G
would gain in the first 60 years period about Rs.412.0 lacs as
against Rs .159 lacs and would not be required to supply any
cement for the project. This proposal was approved by the BEST
Connnittee by its resolution dated 18th January, 1982.

     The follow up proceedings •tarted thereafter and an
advertisement came to be published in the Times of India and         H
    774              SUPREME COURT REPORTS      [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.


A   various other newspapers on 10th February 1982 inviting offers
    from the interested parties to develop the BEST property on
    certain terms and conditions contained in a document which could
    be obtained from the Engineer-in-Gharge (Civil) of the BEST, In
    addition to the said advertisement in the newspapers, notices
    were also forwarded to 22 well ~wn builders out of whom 12
B   builders purchased the tender forms on payment of Rs.1000 each.

         The parties hereinafter are referred to in accordance with
    their position in C.A. No. 2311 of 1984.

         Pursuant to the advertisement and the said notices two
    tenders were received, one was sent by M/s. Forward Construction
C   Co., respondent No.7, a partnership firm, and the other by M/s.
    Deep Construction. As the tender of Forward Construction Co. was
    higher than that of M/s. Deep Construction it was accepted by the
    BEST Committee on 31st March 1982. The BEST Committee also
    recorded its approval to General Manager entering into the
    contract with the highest bidder for development of the BEST's
    property at Andheri. The approval further stated that the &1punt
D   so earned would be used for constructing staff quarters. The
    possession of the plot was handed over to Forward Construction
    Company for the purpose of putting up the construction for and on
    behalf of the BEST on 18th April 1982.

         It appears that soon after one Subhash Vasant Thakkar on
E   20th April, 1982 filed a petition in his capacity as a rate-payer
    in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Article 226 of
    the Constitution, being writ petition No.921 of 1982. He
    challenged the right of the BEST to use the land for a purpose
    different from one one for which it had been reserved and desig-
    nated under the development plan as well as the town planning
F   scheme and that it had no right to use it for coomercial
    purpose. He also challenged the right of the BEST to enter into a
    contract with the builder. The petition was dismissed by a
    learned Single Judge on 28th May, 1982 after having heard all
    parties concerned and after giving opportunity to file replies,
    The learned Judge found that the substantial portion of       the
G   acquired plot was being utilised for a purpose for which it was
    acquired and the coomercial use to which the small portion was
    being put would substantially argument the coffers of the
    Corporation for the benefit of the public at large. The learned
    Judge also rejected the contention that the value charged by the
    BEST for allowing use of its property was grossly inadequate and
H   that no sufficient publicity was given before inviting offers.
        FORWAf(J) CONST, CO• v. PRABHAT MANDAL [MISRA, J,]    775

                                                                     A
The court after havlng rejected the various pleas taken by the
petitioner in the case also observed that the petitioner was not
an independent-minded citizen solely inspired by the laudable
motive of protecting public interest but the allegations in the
petition indicated that he had been set up by a disgruntled
builder who purchased the tender doctunent but did not give an       B
offer. The matter was taken up in appeal but the Division Bench
dismissed the same after hearing all the parties.

      After the dismissal of the appeal the present respondents 1
to 6 in civil appeal no. 2311 filed a similar petition under
                            ~.
Article 226 of the Constitution in the· Bombay High Cour.t which     c
gives rise to the present appeals and the special leave petition
seeking almost the same relief as was claimed. in the earlier
petition filed by Thakkar. The learned Single Judge stunmarily
dismissed the writ petition by his order dated 23rd November,
1982.
                                                                     D
     The respondents Nos. 1 to 6 too~'iup ·the matter in appeal.
The Divison Bench admitted. the appi!ai 'anci disposed of the same
finally on the same day setting asid" the order of the learned
Single Judge. It admitted the writ petitfcirt ·and transferred the
same to be finally disposed of by a Division .Bel\ch• The Division
Bench eventually allowed the petition and issued a writ of manda-    E
mus directing appellants 1 to 4 in civil appeal no. 2311, their
officers, subordinates, servants and agents not to use plot no.
14 in the Tow Planning Scheme, Andheri No, 1 (2nd Variation)
reserved for BEST bus depot for commercial purpose or for any
purpose other than the purpose for which the said plot of land
was reserved. The court, however, clarified that its decision did
not prevent the planning authority, that is, the BMC, form taking    F
such ,steps as it may be advised to have the plan modified in
accordance with s. 37 of the said Act.

     The appellants feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High
Court filed a detailed review petition mainly on the ground that
the respondents 1 to 6 had not taken any plea based on regulation    G
3 of the Building Regulations and it was only during the course
of arguments that this plea was advanced before the court and
certain papers were filed before the court. The appellants had no
opportunity to produce documents in rebuttal and it was only when
the decision was given by the court that the appellants have been
able to trace and collect a ntunber of documents, which according
to them have great bearing on the interpretation of the said         H
building regulations contained · in the Town Planning Scheme
    776               SUPREME COURT REPORTS      [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.

A
    Andheri I (2nd Variation) finally sanctioned by the State Govern-
    ment on 17th July, 1976, They filed the following documents along
    with the review petition :

         1. Town Planning Scheme Andheri No. I (Final) which came
B   into force on 15th November, 1919 vid~ Goverrunent notification
    No. GP-8388-A dated 7th October 1919 in the Bombay Government
    Gazette Part I No. Z404 dated 9th Octob<!r, 1919.

          2. Notification No. TPS-2963-30714-R dated 29th October,
    1963 issued by the State Government sanctioning the T.P. Scheme
    Andheri I (lst Variation) (Final) with effect from Ist January,
c   1964.

         3. The T, P. Scheme Andheri I (Ist Variation) containing
    Building Regulations which inter alia state that no plot within
    the area of the Scheme shall be permitted ·to be used for any
    purpose other than residential.

D        4. Resolution of the Bombay Municipal Corporation No. 539
    dated 24th August 1967 declaring their intention under Section ~2
    read with Section 59(a) of the MRTP Act 1966 to make second
    variation Town Planning Scheme Andheri No. I with a view :

         (a) to rectify the discrepancies in the areas of the plots,
E   if any, to regularise the boundaries wherever necessary, and to
    make other consequential changes in the re-distribution of Valua-
    tion Statement ;

         (b) to change some of the residential and/or shopping plots
    into coomercial plots as per final Development Plan;
F
         (c) to make such other variation as deemed necessary,
    supplementary to and consequential to the Variations stated
    above.

         5. Notificatior. dated 6th September 1968 issued by the
G   Municipal Commissioner for Greater Bombay informing the public
    that the Draft Variation Scheme for Andheri Town prepared and
    approved by the Corporation for publication under Resolution
    No.399 of 19th August, 1968 was upon for inspection and any
    person who had been affected by the draft variation scheme should
    cODlDIJilicate in writing to the Executive Engineer, Town Plannirg,
H   any objection or suggestion within 30 days from the publicat .on
    of the said notifi!:h.tion. .
         FORWARD CONST. CO. v. PRABllAT MANDAL [MISRA, J,]    777


     6, Government notification in Urban Development, Public         A
Health & Housing Department TPS 2969/11752 dated 30th Msy 1970
sanctioning the draft scheme (2nd variation).

     7. Notification dated 15th May 1973 issued by Shri K.S.
Keswani, Arbitrator, announcing that he had dohe all that was
required of him regarding Town Planning Scheme, Andheri I (2nd       B
Variation) (Final) under Section 72(3) of the MRTP Act 1966 and
the rules framed under the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 and had
drawn up the Final Scheme as required under section 72(3) (xviii)
of the said Act.

     8, Decision given by the. Tribunal of Appeals presided by       c
Shri G,H, Guttal dated 7,4,1975 regarding Town Planning Scheme,
Andheri I, (2nd Variation)(Final) wherein paragraph No.16 deals
with Appeal No.3 relating to Final Plot No.14,

     9. Notice dated 16th January 1976 issued   by   Shri    K.S.
Keswani, Arbitrator, announcing that he had drawn up the Final·      D
Scheme, Andheri NO.I (2nd Variation) as required under section
72(3) (xviii) read with section 82(2) of the MRTP Act, 1966,

     10, Final Scheme drawn by Shri K.S. Keswani, Arbitrator on
16th January 1976 showing that the Scheme illvolved 27 plots which
had fallen in Commercial Zone under the Final Development Plan       E
and the Original Plot Nos.1 to 27 remained as Final Plot Nos.1 to
27.

     11, Notification dated 17th July 1976 issued by the Govern-
ment of Maharashtra sanctioning Town . Planning Scheme, Andheri
No.I (2nd Variation)(Final) published in the Maharashtra Govern-
ment Gazette Extraordinary dated 17th July 1976,                     F

These documents according to the appellants proved that:

     (a) The Town Planning Scheme Andheri No. I (Final) . known as
the principal scheme, came into force on 15th NOvember 19J9.
                                                                     G
     ( b) The Bombay Municipal Corporation declared its intention
to vary that scheme on 18th November 1957 to enable the plot
holders in the scheme area to effect development on par with the
area outside the scheme wherein the built up area upto 1/3rd of
the plot and the structures for ground and two upper floors were
permissible and also to provide underground sewers and storm
                                                                     H
water drains.
    778               SUPREME COURT REPORTS       (1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.

A        (c) The Town Planning Scheme, Andheri No.1 (1st Variation)
    (Final) was sanctioned by the Government on 29th October, 1963
    with effect from !st January, 1964. Under the Building Regula-
    tions made under the said scheme, Regulation No.6 stated that no
    plot within the area of the scheme shall be permitted to be used
    for any purpose other than residential, provided that profession-
B   al offices of doctors, lawyers, engineers and the like as also
    buildings required for educational, recreational, religious or
    cultural purposes, community centres, dispensaries, hospitals and
    any other buildings the use of which is, in the opinion of the
    Local Authority, not likely to affect detrimentally the residen-
    tial character of the locality, may be permitted. In short, all
    the plots in the area of the scheme were permitted to be used for
c   residential purposes.

         (d) Final Development Plan of 'K' Ward which includes
    Andheri came into force with effect from 8.8,1966 and the
    Development Control Rules for the entire Greater Bombay came into
    force from 9th February 196 7. Under the Final Development Plan
    the plots which had been included in Town Planning Scheme Andheri
D   No.l (let Variation) (Final) were included in 'Collllllercial Zone'.

    In short, the entire purpose of varying the Town Planning Scheme
    Andheri No.. I was to bring the scheme in conformity with the
    Development Plan.
E        The High Court, however, dismissed the review petition on
    22nd December, 1983 by the following order:

               "Heard Mr. Singhvi. We have interpreted Regulation 3
               and the proviso in its plain terms. The number of
               documents now produced do not effect the construction
F              which we have placed on Regulation 3 and the proviso.
               Review Petition rejected."

         All the contesting parties have now come up in appeal
    against the judgment of the High Court dated 14th November 1983
    to the extent it went against them. The result is that all the
G   questions which were before the High Court are again up for
    consideration by this Court.

         To start with, the respondents I to 6 had taken a plea that
    the Municipal Commissioner had not obtained the approval of the
    Bombay Municipal Corporation under r.4(a)(i) of the Development
H   Control Rules for change of user, The counsel for the BMC,
    however, informed the court that he had already sought the
         FORWARD CONST. CO. v. PRABHAT MANDAL [MISRA, J.]     779

                                                                     A
sanction of the Bombay Municipal Corporation and the proposal
would soon come up before the Corporation for discus_sion and on
that ground he sought an adjournment of the case to enable the
Corporation to approve the said proposal. On 6th January 1983 the
BMC by its resolution accorded sanction under r.4(a)(i) of the
Development Control Rules for the change of present user of BEST     B
bus depot to a combined user of BEST bus depot with commercial
offices proposed by the Municipal Commissioner. The court there-
after allowed respondents l to 6 to amend their writ petition as
the plea taken by them had lost its force after the sanction.

     The second question for consideration is whether the present    c
writ petition is barred by ~ judicata. This plea has been
negatived by the High Court for two reasons: (1) that in the
earlier writ petition the validity of the permission granted
under r.4(a)(i) of the Development Control Rules was not in
issue; snd (2) that the earlier writ petition filed by Shri
Thakkar was not a bona fide one in as much as he was put up by       D
some disgruntled builder, namely, of M/s. Western Builders.

      So far as the first reason is concerned, the High Court in
our opinion was not right in holding ·that the earlier judgment
woilld not operate as ~ judicata as one of the grounds taken in
the present petition was conspicuous by its absence in the           E
earlier petition. Explanation IV to s,11 C.P.C, provides that any
matter which might and ought to have been made ground of defence
or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a
matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit, An
adjudication is conclusive snd final not only as to the actual
matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties
might and ·aught to have litigated and have had it decided as        F
incidental to or essentially connected with the subject matter of
the litigation and every matter coming with the legitimate
purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of
claim or defence. The principle underlying Explanation IV is that
where the parties have had an opportunity .of controverting a
matter that shoilld be taken to be the same thing as if the matter   G
had been actually controverted snd decided. It is true that where
a matter has been constructively in issue it cannot be said to
have been actually heard and decided. It could only be deemed to
have been heard and decided. The first reason, therefore, has
absolutely no force.

     The second reason given by the High Court however, holds        H
good. Explanation VI to s.11 provides :
    780               SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [1985] SUPP, 3 S.C.R,


A              ''Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a
               public right or of a private right claimed in common
               for thc"8elves and others, all persons interested in
               such right shall, for the purposes of this section be
               deemed to claim under the prsons so litigat•.ng."

B   But it is only when the conditions of Explanation VI are satls-
    f ied that a decision in the litigation will bind all persons
    interested in the right litigated and the onus of proving the
    want of bona fides in respect of the previous litigation is on
    the party seeking to avoid the decision. The words "public right"
    have been added in Explanation VI in view of the new s.91 C.P.C.
    and to prevent multiplicity of litigation in respect of public
c   right. In view of Explanation VI it cannot be disputed that s. 11
    applies to public interest litigation as well but it must be
    proved that the previous litigation was the public interest liti-
    gation not by way of a private grievance. It has to be a bonafide
    litigation in respect of a right which is common and is agitated
    in common with others.

         The High Court in the earlier writ petition had recorded a
    finding that it was not a bona fide litigation and that Shri
    Thakkar, the petitioner in that case, had been put up by M/s.
    Western Builders. This finding excludes the application of s.11
    C.P.C. in the present case. The possibility of litigation to
    foreclose sny further enquiry into a matter in which an enquiry
E   is necessary in the interest of public cannot be overruled. In
    view of the finding of the High Court that the previous writ
    petition was not a bona fide one, the present writ petition would
    not be barred by s.11 of the C.P.C. and the High Court was
    justified in so holding but not because of the first reason but
    because of the second reason.
F
         This leads us to the third point that a valuable public
    property was being disposed of at a gross undervalue in a highly
    secretive manner only to oblige respondent No. 7. This plea in
    our opinion was rightly negatived by the High Court. Consequent
    upon the resolution of 18th January 1982 approving the proposal
G   of the General Manager, sn advertisement came to be published in
    the Times of India and various other newspapers on 10th February
    1982 inviting offers from the interested parties to develop
    BEST's property on certain terms and conditions contained in a
    document which could be obtained from the Engineer-in-chief
    (Civil) in the BEST. In addition to the said advertisement in the
H   newspapers notices were also forwarded to 22 well-known builders
          FORWA1Ul CONST, CO. v. PRABllAT MANDAL [MISRA, J,]   781


out of whom 12 builders purchased the tender forms on payment of      A
Rs.1000 each. In view of these ci1cumstances it cannot be said
that the whole thing was done in a secretive manner.

      Pursuant to the advertisement and the said notices two
 tenders were received out of which one was sent by respondent 7
 which is a partnership firm and another by Deep Construction. The    B
 tender of respondent 7 being higher than that of Deep Construc-
 tion, was accepted by the BEST Committee on 31st March 1982. In
 the facts and circumstances of this case as established, it can-
 not be said that the property of the Corporation has been
 disposed of for a wholly inadequate consideration.
                                                                      c
       The fourth point raised is that the plot No, 14 acquired for
· a public purpose of constructing a bus station wae being used for
  a comnercial purpose which was not permissible. This plea had
  been rejected by the High Court holding that a vet·y substantial
  portion of the acquired plot was being utilised for the purpose
  for which it was acquired and the commercial use to which a small   D
  portion was being put would substantially augment the coffers of
  the Corporation for the benefit of the public at large without
  spending any further amount on the development. It cannot be said
  that the plot has been used for a different purpose from the one
  for which it had been acquired. All that can be said is that a
  part of the plot is being used for constructing two buildings       E
  which would augment the income of B.M.C. that could be utilised
  for th public purpose. The plot is being substantially used for
  the purpose for which it had been acquired.·The additional use of
  the property will not make the use of the property for altogether
  a different purpose.

      Public· interest law activites at times champion one public     F
 interest which clashes with another public interest thus benefit-
 ing one segment of public at another's expense. As disclosed in
 the earlier part of the judgment, the General Manager had sent up
 a proposal whereunder a part of plot No. 14 was to be used for
 construction of two buildings that will augment the income of the
 Corporation which could be used for the purpose of construction      G
 of staff quarters. The prupose for which the plot was earmarked
 ~emaina intact, that is, for the construction of bus depot. In
 our opinion the other public interest sought to be achieved by
 the construction of the two buildings in addition to the bus
 depot is equally important.

     This leads us to the question of mala fides of the officers      H
 of the Corporation in accepting the tender of M/s. Forward
 Construction. This plea was based on various circumstances which
    782               SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.

A
    had been taken into consideration by the High Court and repelled.
    Indeed, no specific plea had been taken against any officer of
    the Corporation to show that the officers were acting with any
    ulteri.or or imporper motive. All the same, the High Court did
    consider this plea and rejected the same for congent reasons with
    which we agree and it is not necessary to repeat them here.

         As a second limb to the plea of mala fides it was contended
    that even assuming that no mental guilt on the part of the
    officer of the Corporation is proved, the transaction suffered
    from legal mala fides or mala fides in law in as much as the
    transaction was outside the Bombay Corporation Act as it was
    intended to make financial gain.
                                                                        I
c
         The avowed function of the Corporation is the improvement of
    Greater Bombay. Section 61 of the Municipal Corporation Act
    enumerates the obligatory and discretionary duties of the
    Corporation Section 6l(t) refer to the improvement of Greater
    Bombay. Section 63(k) authorises the Corporation to take any
D
    measures to promote public safety health, convenience. The plot
    in question admittedly lies in a commercial zone and if any
    facilities are given to the people of that locality providing for
    commercial offices those facilities would go towards the improve-
    ment of Bombay. It cannot, therefore, be said that the transac-

E
    tion was outside the Bombay Corporation Act.

         The resolution of the BEST Committee dated 18th January 1982
                                                                        I
    approving the proposal of the General Manager dated 14th January
    1982 clearly provided that the amount of nonrefundable premium
    payable by the builder at the rate of Rs.250 per sq.ft, of F.S,I.
    would be utilised for the construction of the Undertaking's
F
    quarters and tenements under hire-purchase scheme, The BEST had,
    therefore, clearly earmarked the nonrefundable premium for the
    purpose of construction of quarters and
    hire-purchase scheme.
                                                 tenements under the    1
         Section 87 of the Bombay ~nicipal Corporation Act provides
G
    that the Corporation shall be for the purposes of this Act have
    powers to acquire and hold movable and immovable property whether
    within or without the limits of Greater Bombay. As the property
    is being utilised for augmentation of the revenues of the
    Corporation it is sought to be contended that it is not for the
    purpose of the Act.
H
         The mere fact that the Corporation was to make a gain of the
    nonrefundable premium did not mean that that was the only purpose
    which was in view, The purpose obviously was the best utilisation
         FORWARD CONST. CO. v. PRABHAT MANDAL [MISRA, J,]       783


of the available space. If in a commercial zone the Corporation        A
was able to make available accollllllodation for commercial purposes
we do not see why such a venture cannot be one either for the
purpose of promoting public safety, convenience or in the nature
of facilities being made available as a part of the improvement
of the city, If commercial activities are to be pin-pointed in a
commercial zone and for that ·purposes the Municipal Corporation       B
takes a step to provide accommodation for commercial purposes it
cannot be said that the property of the Corporation was being
acquired or held for purposes other than the purposes of the Act.

     This leads us to· the last but not the least in importance
the plea. based on Building Regulation No. 3. In order to appre-       C
elate the contention it will be proper to read the regulation:

           "The user of the following final plots will be as
           under, as per the sanctioned development plan :

                                                                       D
               Final Plot No.               User

                      10                   Public Wall
                      12 Part              Parking lot
                      14                   Best Bus Depot
                                                                       E
           Provided that the above users may be changed by the
           Local Authority after modification of the Development
           Plan."

It was this plea which prevailed with the High Court and the writ
petition was allowed only on this score. The precise contention
of the counsel for the respondents was that Building Regulation        F
No.3 will override the Development Control Rules for Greater
llombay. Rule 3 of the Development Control Rules for Greater
Bombay reads :

           "3. (a)(i) All development work shall conform to the
           respective provisions made under these Rules. If there      G
           is a conflict between the requirement of these rules
           and the requirements of bye-laws in force the require-
           ments of these rules shall prevail;

           Provided however that in respect of areas included in
           a finally sanctioned Town Planning Scheme, the scheme
           regulations shall prevail if there is a conflict            H
           between the requirements of these rules and of the
           Scheme regulations.
    784                SUPREME COURT REPORTS     [1985] SUPP. 3 s.c.R.


A                (ii) The development work when completed shall not be
                 used for any purpose except for the sanctioned use or
                 such use as can be permitted under these rules.

                 (b) Change of use; No building or premises shall be
                 changed or converted to a use not in conformity with
B                the provisions of these rules."

    If the contention of the respondents that proviso to Building
    Regulation No. 3 overrides the Development Control Rules in
    accepted then the user of the plot as per sanctioned development
    plan can be changed by the local authority after modi:.ication of
    the development plan and as. in the instant case there has been no
C   modification of the development plan the change of user cannot be
    permitted. This is the crucial point on which the writ petition
    has been allowed. The other pleas taken by the respondents, as
    stated above, had been negatived by the High Court. What the
    proviso to Building Regulation No.3 requires is that the change
    of user of the sanctioned plan can be made only after the
    modification of the development plan. The key word in this
D   regulation is 'change'. What does the word 'change' mean? Collins
    English Dictionary gives the following meaning to the word
    'change' :

                 "l. to make or become different, alter, 2. to replace
                 with or exchange for another, 3. to transform or
E                convert, 4. to give or receive something in return,
                 interchange, 5. to give or receive money in exchange
                 for the equivalent sum in small denomination or
                 different currency, 6. to remove or replace the
                 coverings of, 7. to. put on other clothes, 8. to pass
                 from one phase to the following one, 9. to alight from
F                and board another, 10. a variation, deviation or
                 modification, ll, the substitution of one thing for
                 another, exchange, 12. anything that is or may be
                 substituted for something else, 13. a different or
                 fresh set."

G   The meaning of the word 'change' in the Oxford Dictionary reads :

                 "l. take another instead of, 2, resign, get rid of, 3,
                 give or get money change for, 4, put on different
                 clothes, 5, go from one to another, 6. pass to
                 different owner, (, make or become different, 8, take
H                new position in argument, 9, adopt new plan or
                 opinion."
         FORWARD CONST, CO. v. PRABllAT MANDAL [MISRA, J,]    785


So, the general meaning of the word 'change' in the two diction-
                                                                     A
aries is "to make or become different, to transform or convert. 11
If the user was to be completely or substantially changed only
then the prior modification of the development plan was necess-
ary. But in the instant case the user of the plot has not been
changed. It has been used for a bus depot combined with a commer-
cial use to augment the income of the Corporation for public
                                                                     B
purpose. In this view of the connotation of the word 'change' the
proviso has no application to the present case and the High Court
in our opinion was not quite justified in allowing .the writ
petition only on the basis of the proviso to Building Regulation
No. 3.

     It may further be pointed out even at the cost of repetition    c
that this plea had not been taken in the original writ petition
nor in the amended writ petition, and had been taken for the
first time in the course of argument. The appellants had no
opportunity to produce documents in rebuttal and it was only when
the judgment was pronounced that the appellants could lay their
                                                                     D
hands on certain notifications and certain other documents to
show that that was a minor adjustment and could be rectified.
Therefore, the appellants filed a review petition along with
those documents which has been ..numerated in the earlier part of
the judgment. The court described those papers as irrelevant for
the purpose of costruction of the.proviso to Building Regulation
                                                                     E
No. 3, But in our opinion those documents would go a long way to
solve the problem.

     For the foregoing discussion, the appeals must succeed. They
are accordingly allowed, the judgment and order dated 14th
November, 1983 of the Division Bench of the High Court are set
aside, and the judgment and order dated 23rd November 1982 of the
                                                                     F
learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the writ
petition are restored. The special leave petition filed by Prabhat
Mandal and others is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case,
however, the parties shall bear their own costs.



M.L.A.                                            Appeals allowed.