Dismissed

Cyril Thomas Mecwan and 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Sept 2008PIL/1/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the conversion of a housing society into a shopping mall, alleging violations of DC regulations and traffic obstruction. The Court noted lack of expert traffic reports and denied the alleged ITAct-related delay. It held this was not a fit case for extraordinary jurisdiction in a PIL.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Mr. Uday Bobde i/b Sayaji D. Nangre for the Petitioners Mr. D.A. Nalawade, GP for Respondent Nos.1,4 and 5 Ms. P.A. Purandare for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Mr. S.U. Kamdar i/by Mr. M.P. Vora for Respondent No.6

2.The Petitioners have approached this Court in public interest objecting to the construction undertaken by Respondent No.6 Society converting the Housing Society into a commercial complex. It is the case of the Petitioners that they are residing in the vicinity of F.P. No.199, TPS III, since more than 20 years. and that initially Respondent No.6 purchased the property

and constructed residential building and shopping mall on the ground floor. Subsequently, they have carried out construction of a shopping mall on Final Plot No.199, TPS III, bearing CTS No.F/1214 of Village Bandra (W). The Petitioners found that the alleged construction of shopping mall has resulted in causing obstruction to the free flow of traffic as the said Plot No.199 is located at junction of four major roads i.e. linking Road, S.V. Road, Turner Road, S.V. Road (North) and Station Road. and the entrance for the shopping mall is on the V.P. Road i.e. Linking Road. Therefore, it is submitted that as the shopping mall is constructed in violation of DP Plan as well as DCR 52(3), Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 ought not to have given the permission for construction of the shopping mall in the entire building on the said Plot. Therefore, the said permission granted to the Housing Society of Respondent No.6 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3.In reply, the Respondent Society has justified the construction in question and has stated that they have complied with all the requirements and incurred huge expenses and that this sanction for construction was on the basis of the area of the plot, which has

development potentiality of TDR of 620 Sq.Meter for which the society has invested huge sums of money and that as the Society has obtained all the required permissions and even taken care of the parking facilities of the visitors to the shopping mall as per the DCR requirements. There is no public interest involved in the matter as per the grievance of the Petitioners that the said shopping mall has resulted in causing congestion of traffic.

4.This Court on the last date insisted upon Respondent Corporation to file their affidavit in reply. Accordingly, the affidavit in reply has been filed by Mr. Ghate, who is working as Executive Engineer, Building and Proposal Department, WSH Ward, Bandra (W). In the affidavit in reply, the planning authority has specifically stated that the case of the Respondent No.6 was duly processed and it was referred to the Urban Development Department for approval under DCR 62 (3) and no objection to consider the said proposal under DCR 1991 was issued by UD Department dated 6th July, 2005 and, therefore, the proposal was processed by Respondent MCGM and the aforesaid sanction are accorded in accordance with the DC regulation by the Competent Authority and as there are no violation of the law as

contended by the Petitioners, the Petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Authorities have interpreted the DC regulations in favour of Respondent No.6, which is not a correct interpretation of the requirement as what is required to be permitted is as such site as per the DP plan is shopping mall which was earlier in existence when the Housing Society of Respondent No.6 initially constructed the building but the same cannot be interpreted to mean that the entire building can be converted into a shopping mall. On this Court making specific query to the learned counsel for the Petitioners as to why the Petitioners have approached this Court after the construction was almost completed, the learned counsel for the Petitioners pointed out that the Authorities did not furnish proper information under the Right to Information Act, which delayed the filing of the Petition. This fact has been specifically denied by the Executive Engineer of the MCGM in his affidavit in reply and it has been stated that whatever information was sought for by the Petitioners under Right to Information Act was given by the Respondent.

6.The contention of the Petitioners that the construction of the subject building is the cause of aggravating traffic congestion at the junction of the V.P.Road and 28th Road, Bandra(W) as it obstructs movement of traffic is not supported by any study or report of competent authority. Nothing is placed on record to show that the congestion of Traffic is due to

the shopping mall except for the contention of the Petitioner. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, we do not think that this is a fit case that this Court should exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction and entertain this Petition as a public interest litigation.

Cyril Thomas Mecwan and 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cyril Thomas Mecwan and 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajeda Raees Ahmed and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Manubhai Paragji Vashi Vs High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Ors.

Sudhir Tukaram Chavan Vs Brihanmumbai Mum. Corporation and Ors.

Rajendraprasad Brijbhushan Chaube Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Others

Shabbir Ahmed Abdul Jabbar and Anr. Vs Malegaon Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Forum for Fairness in Education and Ors. Vs St. Augustine High School and Ors.

Laxman Rambhau Pawar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shubham Mahila Vikas Mandal Vs the Tahsildar, Ambernath and Ors.

Dr. Smt. Vathsalya K. Shetty Vs B.M.C. and Ors.

Shiv Vani Oil and Gas Exploration Services Ltd. and Anr. Vs Deputy Docks Manager and 2 Ors.

Union of India through the Secretary and 3 Ors. Vs M.D.Pawar and 2 Ors.

Eurotex Industries and Exports Ltd. and Anr. Vs Maharashtra State Electricity and 4 Ors.

Shri Krishna Kumar Ganga Prasad Agnihotri Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Leno Anthony L. D Cruz Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.