Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging TDR Loading and FSI Computation for Redevelopment Project. Court upholds MCGM's permission for TDR and fungible FSI, finding no illegality or public interest violation.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 87
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi, filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to respondent no. 4, India Bulls Properties Private Limited, to load Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to the tune of 11612.78 sq. mtrs along with fungible FSI of 4078.40 sq. mtrs on a plot known as Agency Compound, Jupiter Mill lane. The petitioner also sought a direction to count the FSI of excess parking on various parking floors for computation of FSI. The court examined the maintainability of the PIL and found that the petitioner had not disclosed his bonafides and the petition appeared to be motivated by personal interest rather than public interest. On merits, the court held that the MCGM's permission was in accordance with the Development Control Regulations (DCR) and no illegality was pointed out. Regarding parking FSI, the court noted that as per DCR, parking area is not to be counted as FSI. The court dismissed the PIL with costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to the MCGM.

Headnote

A) Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability - PIL challenging MCGM's permission for TDR loading and fungible FSI - Court held that the petition does not raise any issue of public interest and is motivated by personal interest, hence not maintainable (Paras 1-10).

B) Town Planning - TDR and Fungible FSI - Validity of permission - Court held that the MCGM's permission to load TDR and fungible FSI was in accordance with DCR and no illegality was shown (Paras 11-20).

C) Town Planning - Computation of FSI - Excess parking area - Court held that parking area is not to be counted as FSI as per DCR, and the petitioner's contention was without merit (Paras 21-30).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the permission granted by MCGM to load TDR and fungible FSI on the subject plot is illegal and whether excess parking area should be counted as FSI.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court dismissed the PIL with costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to the MCGM.

Law Points

  • Public Interest Litigation
  • Maintainability
  • TDR (Transferable Development Rights)
  • Fungible FSI
  • Computation of FSI
  • Parking FSI
  • Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
  • 1888
  • Development Control Regulations
  • Article 226
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (BOM) (09) 91

Public Interest Litigation No. 96 of 2013

2014-09-30

Anoop V. Mohta, F.M. Reis

Mr. Rakesh K. Agarwal for the Petitioner, Mr. A.B. Ketkar, AGP for Respondent No.1, Ms. Trupti Puranik for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Kamat with Mr. Saket Mone with Mr. Vishesh Kalva i/by Vidhi Partners for Respondent No.4

Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi

The State of Maharashtra, The Municipal Commissioner, Mumbai Municipal Corporation, The Executive Engineer, Bldg Proposal (City-I), India Bulls Properties Private Limited

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

Nature of Litigation

Public Interest Litigation challenging MCGM's permission for TDR loading and fungible FSI on a plot.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of permission granted on 16 October 2012 for loading TDR and fungible FSI, and direction to count excess parking area as FSI.

Filing Reason

Alleged illegality in granting TDR and fungible FSI, and failure to count parking area as FSI.

Issues

Whether the PIL is maintainable? Whether the MCGM's permission to load TDR and fungible FSI is illegal? Whether excess parking area should be counted as FSI?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the permission to load TDR and fungible FSI was illegal and that parking area should be counted as FSI. Respondents argued that the permission was in accordance with DCR and the PIL was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the PIL was not maintainable as it did not raise any issue of public interest and was motivated by personal interest. On merits, the MCGM's permission was in accordance with DCR and no illegality was shown. Parking area is not to be counted as FSI as per DCR.

Judgment Excerpts

The Petitioner, by this Public Interest Litigation, has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for following reliefs: Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties, specifically at the instance of Petitioner, who insisted for early order/disposal of the matter.

Procedural History

The petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226. Rule was issued and heard finally with consent of parties.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
  • Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Petition Against Political Secretaries for Lack of Maintainability. Appointment of Political Secretaries is a Policy Decision Not Subject to Judicial Review Under Quo Warranto.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging TDR Loading and FSI Computation for Redevelopment Project. Court upholds MCGM's permission for TDR and fungible FSI, finding no illegality or public interest violation.