WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2317 OF 2019

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging municipal approvals for construction of commercial building and seeking revocation of plans and demolition of allegedly illegal construction.

Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash sanctioned plans and commencement certificates dated 20.2.2013 and 20.3.2013, and the Municipal Commissioner's order dated 29.6.2019; a writ of mandamus to revoke approvals and demolish commercial building; and direction to examine structural stability.

Petitioners alleged that the commercial Building No.1 was constructed in violation of Development Control Regulations, 1991, on an area designated as 'Excavated Road' which was part of the original layout, and that the MCGM had illegally sanctioned the plans and granted commencement certificates.

Earlier Writ Petition No. 1502 of 2013 was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition challenging the Municipal Commissioner's order dated 29 June 2019; earlier interim orders dated 26 June 2013 (undertaking by developers not to construct on Excavated Road portion except for connecting bridges) and 7 January 2016 (construction allowed at developers' risk, MCGM not to grant occupation certificate without court leave); Supreme Court SLP order dated 6 September 2019 continuing occupation certificate and directing no fresh OC till 17 September 2019.

Whether the sanctioned plans and commencement certificates for commercial Building No.1 were illegal and violative of DCRs 1991. Whether the Municipal Commissioner's order dated 29.06.2019 rejecting the petitioners' complaint was valid. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a writ of mandamus for revocation and demolition.

The present Writ Petition is fled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It raises distinct issues pertaining to the development of a large complex on the Andheri-Kurla Road (Sir Mathuradas Vasanj0ci Road) in Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093. (Para 1) The order of 26th June 2013 reads thus: “Mr Kamdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 makes a statement that pending admission respondent Nos. 5 and 6 will not put-up any construction on the portion of the property described as “Excavated Road” on the Plan-Exh.G to the Petition. He clarifed that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 propose connecting the commercial buildings on either side of this portion at the 2nd foor level. This construction is not likely to take place in the near future. Hence, the above statements are accepted. Any construction put-up hereafter shall be without claiming any equities. 2. S.O. to 24th July 2013 for admission.” (Para 4) The order of 70cth January 2016 says: “ Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Considering the issues raised in the writ petition, it requires fnal hearing. Accordingly we issued Rule. Concerned Advocates on record waive service. By way of interim relief, we direct that it will be open for the 5th Respondent to carry on further construction at its own risk and subj0cect to fnal outcome of this petition. However, the application which may be made by the respondent No.5 for grant of occupation certifcate shall not be decided by the Municipal Corporation without seeking leave of this Court. It will be also open for the respondent No.5 to apply for similar leave.” (Para 5)

The Petitioners previously filed Writ Petition No. 1502 of 2013; on 16 July 2019, they sought to challenge a recent order of 29 June 2019 passed by the Municipal Commissioner; the Court allowed withdrawal with liberty to file fresh petition; the previous interim orders of 26 June 2013 and 7 January 2016 were continued for four weeks; fresh Writ Petition (L) No. 2317 of 2019 was filed on 6 August 2019; on 19 August 2019, ad-interim relief was declined; the Petitioners filed SLP (Civil) No. 20703 of 2019; on 6 September 2019, the Supreme Court ordered that any occupation certificate already issued shall continue and no fresh OC shall be granted till 17 September 2019, requesting High Court to pass reasoned order on interim relief; on 17 September 2019, with consent of parties, the writ petition was taken up for final disposal without further affidavits; arguments concluded on 10 October 2019 and judgment reserved.

• Constitution of India:
• Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888:
• Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966:
• Development Control Regulations, 1999:
• Companies Act, 1956: