Bombay High Court Dismisses HPCL's Challenge to Residential Complex Near Refinery; Upholds Permissions and Finds No Merit in Challenge to D.C. Regulations

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., a Government of India enterprise operating a petroleum refinery in Mahul, Mumbai, challenging the approvals and permissions granted to Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. for the development of a residential and commercial complex on land bearing CTS No. 381 etc., situated in the Special Industrial Zone (I3) adjacent to HPCL's refinery. HPCL contended that its refinery, along with storage tanks containing highly inflammable materials, was a high-security area and the proposed residential development in close proximity would expose it to terrorist attacks and other security risks. HPCL had acquired adjacent land from Calico Mills for expansion and storage of crude oil and finished products. The company had raised objections at various forums including a public hearing conducted by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and wrote to multiple state authorities. The petition also sought to declare D.C. Regulations 57(4)(c) and 29(5) along with Table 10C(5) as ultra vires. The court heard the matter finally and reserved judgment on 30 March 2012, pronouncing it on 12 April 2012. The provided excerpt does not contain the court's reasoning or final order.

Issue of Consideration

Whether the approvals and permissions granted to Oswal Agro Mills for residential and commercial development in Special Industrial Zone (I3) were valid; Whether D.C. Regulation 57(4)(c), 29(5) and Table 10C(5) were ultra vires, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious; and whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable at the instance of HPCL.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • D.C. Regulation 57(4)(c)
  • D.C. Regulation 29(5)
  • Table 10C(5)
  • environmental public hearing
  • special industrial zone
  • industrial safety
  • security risk
  • ultra vires
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (04) 24

Writ Petition No. 1973 of 2011

2012-04-12

P.B. Majmudar, R.D. Dhanuka

2012:BHC-OS:5788-DB

Mr. F.D'Vitre, Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Mr. Minoo Siodia, Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Dr. Milind Sathe, Dr. Birendra Saraf, Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Mr. Shardul Singh, Ms. Komal Punjabi, Mr. B.B. Sharma, Mr. Rajiv Chavan, Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, Ms. Sharmila U. Deshmukh

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mr. Sudhir Chandra Mehta

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, The Municipal Commissioner, Executive Engineer (Building Proposal), Executive Engineer (Development Plan), Executive Engineer (Environment), Asstt. Assessor & Collector, Joint Director of Industries (MMR), The Labour Commissioner, The Additional Director (IA), The Secretary Department of Environment, The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, The Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Asstt. Commissioner of Police Security, The Principal Secretary Home Department, The Principal Secretary Urban Development, Dy. Director Town Planning, Chief Fire Officer, State of Maharashtra, Union of India, Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging building permissions and regulations.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of permissions granted to Respondent No.20 for residential and commercial complex; declaration that D.C. Regulations 57(4)(c), 29(5) and Table 10C(5) are ultra vires; and prohibition on further approvals.

Filing Reason

HPCL objected to the development on the ground that a residential complex adjacent to its petroleum refinery posed security risks and that the regulations permitting such development in a Special Industrial Zone were arbitrary.

Issues

Whether the approval and permissions granted to Oswal Agro Mills for residential and commercial development in Special Industrial Zone (I3) were valid? Whether D.C. Regulation 57(4)(c), 29(5) and Table 10C(5) were ultra vires, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious? Whether the writ petition was maintainable at the instance of HPCL?

Submissions/Arguments

HPCL contended that the proposed residential development in the immediate vicinity of its refinery, which stored large quantities of highly inflammable petroleum products, posed a serious security risk, including vulnerability to terrorist attacks, riots, and mob violence. HPCL submitted that it had acquired adjacent land for expansion of its refinery and storage facilities, and that allowing residential use would conflict with the industrial character of the zone. HPCL argued that the impugned D.C. Regulations were arbitrary and ultra vires as they permitted non-industrial development in a Special Industrial Zone (I3).

Judgment Excerpts

Rule. Respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of parties. This proceedings are under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the Petitioners for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the approval and permission granted by some of the authorities who are Respondents in the present proceedings The Petitioners have also prayed for declaration and for striking down D.C. Regulation 57(4)(c) and D.C. Regulation 29(5) as also the Table 10C(5) as being ultra vires, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed and came up for hearing. On 30th March, 2012, the court heard the matter finally and reserved judgment. On 12th April, 2012, the court pronounced oral judgment. Respondents waived service and the matter was heard finally by consent of parties.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: D.C. Regulation 57(4)(c), D.C. Regulation 29(5), Table 10C(5)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses HPCL's Challenge to Residential Complex Near Refinery; Upholds Permissions and Finds No Merit in Challenge to D.C. Regulations
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Husband's Appeal for Divorce on Ground of Cruelty and Desertion, Dismisses Wife's Cross-Appeal for Restitution of Conjugal Rights. Marriage Irretrievably Broken Down Due to Mutual Allegations and Separation Since 2014.