Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from construction activities undertaken by Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Limited on Plot No.5B+6 at Worli, Mumbai, involving a high-rise residential tower and a Public Parking Lot (PPL). The developer obtained a commencement certificate on 24th February 2005 under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) and the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 (DCR 1991). In 2008, an amendment introduced clause 24 in Regulation 33, offering incentive FSI for public parking lots on the condition that built-up parking area is handed over free of cost to the Municipal Corporation. The developer applied under this clause, and after governmental approval, separate plans for the PPL were sanctioned on 20th August 2010, with a commencement certificate endorsed only up to plinth level. Despite this, the developer constructed 15 upper floors of the PPL, claiming a deemed permission under Regulation 6(4) of the DCR 1991, and also completed 56 floors of the residential tower though the certificate allowed only 43 floors. The Municipal Corporation issued stop work notices under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, first on 16th July 2011 (later withdrawn) and again on 14th December 2011, and also served a show cause notice under Section 51 of the MRTP Act on 29th November 2011, proposing to revoke the commencement certificate for the PPL. The developer filed a suit (L.C. Suit No.2942 of 2011) in the City Civil Court, which granted an ad-interim injunction on 24th December 2011, restraining the Corporation from enforcing the stop work notice. The construction of the PPL continued during the suit's pendency. Janhit Manch filed a public interest litigation (PIL No.43 of 2012) challenging the entire construction and approvals, which was tagged with the writ petition and first appeal. The Supreme Court, noting the involvement of an investment of around Rs.2000 crores, directed the Bombay High Court to decide the writ petition by 31st January 2016. The High Court heard the matters and reserved judgment. The key legal issues included the validity of the deemed permission claim under Regulation 6(4), the legality of the stop work notices and the revocation process, adherence to natural justice principles, and the extent of unauthorized construction. The Court was also required to consider the implications of the ad-interim injunction and the public interest concerns raised in the PIL. However, the final decision and reasoning of the Court are not available in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Incentive FSI - Public Parking Lot - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, Regulation 33 Clause 24 - Under clause 24, additional FSI was available for multi-storied parking lots on plots abutting roads, subject to prior Government approval and handing over built-up parking free of cost; the State Government approved the developer's proposal and plans were sanctioned on 20.08.2010 with a separate IOD; the issue was whether construction beyond plinth without explicit commencement certificate attracted consequences under the Act (Paras 6-7). B) Building Construction - Commencement Certificate - Unauthorized Construction - MRTP Act, 1966; DCR 1991 - The developer obtained a commencement certificate on 24.02.2005 for residential tower, later endorsed only up to 43rd floor, but constructed 13 additional upper floors illegally; similarly, PPL construction was completed up to 15 upper floors despite CC being limited to plinth, raising questions of legality and deemed permission under Regulation 6(4) (Paras 5, 8). C) Municipal Corporation - Stop Work Notices - Section 354A Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - The Corporation issued stop work notices on 16.07.2011 and 14.12.2011 for the PPL, alleging absence of valid commencement certificate; the developer challenged these notices, obtained an ad-interim injunction from the City Civil Court, and continued construction during the suit's pendency, leading to further legal proceedings (Paras 10). D) Natural Justice - Revocation of Commencement Certificate - Section 51 MRTP Act - A show cause notice dated 29.11.2011 was issued by the Corporation calling upon the developer to explain why the CC for PPL should not be revoked; the developer responded; the subsequent stop work notice raised issues of procedural fairness and the necessity of a hearing before drastic action (Para 10). E) Public Interest Litigation - Challenge to Construction - PIL No.43 of 2012 filed by Janhit Manch questioning the entire construction and approvals; the PIL was tagged with the main proceedings, and the Supreme Court directed the High Court to dispose of the writ petition by 31.01.2016, emphasizing the large investment of Rs.2000 crores; the Court noted the contentious issues regarding regularisation and public interest (Paras 2, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Municipal Corporation's stop work notice and show cause notice for revocation of commencement certificate for the Public Parking Lot were valid in light of the developer's claim of deemed permission under Regulation 6(4) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991; whether the construction of upper floors beyond plinth level was illegal and whether principles of natural justice were followed; whether the public interest litigation challenging the construction should be entertained.
Law Points
- deemed permission under Regulation 6(4) of DCR 1991
- incentive FSI under Regulation 33 Clause 24
- stop work notice under Section 354A of MMC Act
- revocation of commencement certificate under Section 51 of MRTP Act
- natural justice
- ad-interim injunction
- public interest litigation
- illegal construction beyond sanctioned plans
- requirement of prior approval for public parking lot
- principle of force majeure in construction delays
