Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Against CIDCO's Refusal to Grant NOC for Additional FSI for IT/ITES Development. Government Order dated 31st August 2009 enabling additional FSI for IT/ITES use is binding on CIDCO as a planning authority.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 91
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, M/s. Shakti Commercial Premises Society Ltd., a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Coop. Societies Act, 1960, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the decision of Respondent No. 2, City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), declining to grant a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) for additional 100% Floor Space Index (FSI) over the basic FSI of 1.5 already available on Plot No. 1A in Sector 19D, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. The petitioner had applied for allotment of 32 shops, 3 offices, and 1 canteen on the said land in November 2003, and CIDCO issued separate letters of allotment. Subsequently, the petitioner applied on 16th November 2004 for permission to use the units for commercial purposes and for grant of unconsumed FSI based on the General Development Control Regulations (GDCR) of the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC), sanctioned by the State Government vide Notification dated 27th May 2004. CIDCO's Board of Directors, by Resolution No. 9142 dated 23rd December 2004, accepted the request and granted approval for allotment of balance unconsumed FSI and NOC for change of user from existing shops and godown to general commercial use, subject to NMMC's approval. However, when the petitioner later sought additional FSI for development of proposed IT/ITES use, relying on the Government order dated 31st August 2009 which enabled NMMC to permit additional FSI for IT/ITES development, CIDCO refused to grant the NOC. The petitioner argued that the Government order was binding on CIDCO and that the refusal was arbitrary. The respondents contended that CIDCO, as the planning authority, had the discretion to grant or refuse NOC and that the Government order did not mandate automatic grant. The court analyzed the Government order and found that it was issued under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and was binding on all planning authorities, including CIDCO. The court held that CIDCO's refusal was not based on any valid ground under the order and was therefore arbitrary and unsustainable. The court allowed the petition, quashed CIDCO's decision, and directed CIDCO to grant the NOC for additional FSI for IT/ITES use within four weeks, subject to compliance with other requirements.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution of India - Government Order Binding on Planning Authority - The petitioner sought a writ against CIDCO's refusal to grant NOC for additional FSI for IT/ITES use. The court held that the Government order dated 31st August 2009 is binding on CIDCO as a planning authority and CIDCO cannot refuse NOC on grounds not stipulated in the order. (Paras 3-26)

B) Town Planning - Additional FSI - IT/ITES Development - Government Order dated 31st August 2009 - The Government order permitted additional 100% FSI over basic FSI of 1.5 for IT/ITES development in Navi Mumbai. The court held that the petitioner's proposal for IT/ITES use falls within the ambit of the order and CIDCO's refusal was arbitrary. (Paras 7-20)

C) Cooperative Societies - Allotment of Units - Change of User - The petitioner-Society had been allotted units for commercial use and had applied for additional FSI. The court noted that CIDCO had earlier granted approval for change of user to general commercial use, and the subsequent refusal for additional FSI was inconsistent. (Paras 4-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether CIDCO's refusal to grant No-Objection Certificate for additional 100% FSI over basic FSI of 1.5 for proposed IT/ITES development on the subject land is valid, despite the Government order dated 31st August 2009 enabling such additional FSI.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, quashed CIDCO's decision refusing to grant NOC, and directed CIDCO to grant NOC for additional 100% FSI for IT/ITES development within four weeks, subject to compliance with other requirements.

Law Points

  • Government order binding on planning authority
  • Additional FSI for IT/ITES
  • Change of user
  • Unconsumed FSI
  • Article 226 of Constitution of India
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (06) 31

WRIT PETITION NO. 10976 OF 2011

2012-06-11

A. M. Khanwilkar, R. G. Ketkar

Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Counsel, with Mr. Vinay Sonpal for the Petitioner; Mr. V. S. Gokhale, A.G.P., for Respondent No. 1; Mr. A. M. Kulkarni for Respondent No. 2; Mr. A. G. Garge for Respondent No. 3

M/s. Shakti Commercial Premises Society Ltd.

State of Maharashtra, The City and Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging CIDCO's refusal to grant No-Objection Certificate for additional FSI for IT/ITES development.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash CIDCO's decision and a writ of mandamus directing CIDCO to grant NOC for additional 100% FSI for IT/ITES use.

Filing Reason

CIDCO declined to grant NOC for additional FSI despite the Government order dated 31st August 2009 enabling such additional FSI for IT/ITES development.

Previous Decisions

CIDCO's Board of Directors had earlier granted approval for change of user to general commercial use and for unconsumed FSI vide Resolution No. 9142 dated 23rd December 2004.

Issues

Whether the Government order dated 31st August 2009 is binding on CIDCO? Whether CIDCO's refusal to grant NOC for additional FSI for IT/ITES use is arbitrary and unsustainable?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the Government order dated 31st August 2009 is binding on CIDCO and that the refusal to grant NOC is arbitrary and contrary to the order. Respondents argued that CIDCO, as the planning authority, has discretion to grant or refuse NOC and that the Government order does not mandate automatic grant.

Ratio Decidendi

A Government order issued under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 is binding on all planning authorities, including CIDCO. CIDCO cannot refuse NOC for additional FSI for IT/ITES development on grounds not stipulated in the order, and such refusal is arbitrary and unsustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed principally against the decision of Respondent No. 2 City and Industrial Development Corporation (for short 'CIDCO') declining to grant No-objection certificate for grant of additional 100% FSI over basic FSI of 1.5 already available on the land bearing Plot No. 1A in Sector 19D, Vashi (for short 'said land'), despite the Government order dated 31st August, 2009 enabling the Respondent No. 3 Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (for short 'Corporation') to permit additional FSI for development of proposed IT & ITES use. The Board, vide Resolution No. 9142 dated 23rd December, 2004, accepted the request of the petitioner-Society.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging CIDCO's refusal to grant NOC for additional FSI. The court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 30th April 2012, pronouncing it on 11th June 2012.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Section 154
  • Maharashtra Coop. Societies Act, 1960:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Petition Challenging Government Order Declaring Dargah as Muslim Religious Institution. The court held that the State Government has the power to decide the character of a religious institution under Section 3 of the...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition by Maharashtra Police Academy Against Industrial Court Order in Unfair Labour Practice Case. Held that the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 as the pet...