Allowed

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Mar 2014WP/662/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition permitting the petitioner to construct a building on a sub-plot without Environmental Clearance, provided the total constructed area does not exceed 20,000 sq. mtrs. The court relied on its own previous precedents and required an undertaking to ensure this limit is not breached.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to construct without NOC if area remains under 20,000 sq. mtrs., conditioned on an undertaking to limit construction.

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp662-14

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.662 OF 2014

¶6

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd.

¶7

..Petitioner.

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors.

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Mr.P.K. Dhakephalkar, senior Advocate i/b. Ameet Palkar for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Vinod Mahadik for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajeev chavan with S. Hariharan for respondent No.2. Mr. J.S. Saluja, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.3 & 4.

¶13

CORAM : V.M. KANADE AND A.K. MENON, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 6TH MARCH, 2014

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

This petition is filed for seeking appropriate Writ order and direction permitting the petitioner to construct building on sub-plot A, Phase 2A. It is submitted that the two buildings will be constructed on Plot A, Phase 2A namely, Bhagirat and Airavath. The commencement certificate was granted in the year 2002 and the petitioner was permitted to construct the building upto 7^th floor. According to the petitioner, the total area to be constructed on the said plot is less than 20,000 sq. mtrs. However, the Municipal Corporation informed the

¶17

1/3

¶18

wp662-14

¶19

petitioner that according to their calculation, the total constructed area is 20,398 sq. mtrs., therefore, NOC is required to be taken from the Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. The petitioner accordingly made an application to the Environmental Impact Assessment Authority on 26^th April, 2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is a provision in the said notification which has been issued in 2006 that if permission is not granted by the said assessment authority within a particular period of time, permission is deemed to have been granted. It is submitted that by way of abundant precaution the petitioner had approached the National Green Tribunal seeking appropriate directions. However, it is submitted that the matter has been remanded back.

¶20

It is now submitted that, the petitioner in view of the controversy with regard to the actual area of construction proposes to construct the building Airavath only upto 5^th floor so that the total area would be less than 20,000 sq. mtrs. It is submitted that if the area is less than 20,000 sq. mtrs., then it is not necessary to obtain NOC from the said authority. It is submitted that this Court in several cases had held that if the area is less than 20,000 sq. mtrs., then it is not necessary to wait till the clearance is granted by the said Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. Our attention is invited

¶21

2/3

¶22

wp662-14

¶23

to the orders passed by this Court which are annexed to the petition.

¶24

We have perused the said orders which have been passed in Writ Petition No.2809 of 2012 and Writ Petition (Lod) No.470 of 2013 and also order passed in Writ Petition (Lod) No.2305 of 2013 dated 18^th December, 2013 in which various orders passed by this court are mentioned in para 4 of the order. It is submitted, therefore, that similar order be passed in this petition.

¶25

It is not in dispute that the said orders which have been passed by this Court have not been challenged by the State Government by filing S.L.P. in the Apex Court and as such, therefore, in similar cases, this Court has permitted the petitioner to construct on area less than 20,000 sq. mtrs. In our view, therefore, for the said reason, we allow the petition in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition on the condition that the petitioner shall give an undertaking to this Court within one week from today that they will not carry out construction beyond 20,000 sq. mtrs.

¶26

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly in terms of prayer clause (a) with aforesaid directions.

¶27

3/3

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdulkarim Abdulla and 19 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mahendra P Jain and 14 Ors. Vs Vardhman Developes Limited and 7 Ors.

Dev Land and Housing Ltd. Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Anurag Sarda Vs Union of India through General Manager

Anurag Sarda Vs Union of India through General Manager and 2 Anr.

Kayem Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary Deapartment Food and Drug and Ors.