Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi, claiming to be a social activist and environmentalist, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Bombay High Court challenging the grant of additional Floor Space Index (FSI) to Respondent No. 4, M/s Capricon Realty Ltd., under Regulation 33(1) of the Development Control Regulations (DCR) for Greater Mumbai. The petitioner alleged that the additional FSI was granted illegally in lieu of road set back area, and that the developer failed to provide housing for mill workers as required under Regulation 58 of the DCR. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, and the developer, opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner lacked locus standi and that the grant was lawful. The court, after hearing arguments, held that the petitioner failed to establish any personal injury or public wrong, and the petition was not maintainable as a PIL. The court further observed that Regulation 33(1) is clear and unambiguous, and the grant of additional FSI was in accordance with law. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi - Social Activist - Petitioner claiming to be a social activist and environmentalist filed PIL challenging grant of additional FSI to a developer - Court examined whether the petitioner had sufficient interest and bona fides - Held that the petitioner failed to establish any personal injury or public wrong, and the petition was not maintainable as a PIL (Paras 2-5).
B) Development Control Regulations - Regulation 33(1) - Additional FSI in lieu of road set back area - Interpretation of DCR provisions - The court considered the scope of Regulation 33(1) which allows additional FSI for surrendering road set back area - Held that the provision is clear and unambiguous, and the grant of additional FSI was in accordance with law (Paras 6-10).
C) Development Control Regulations - Regulation 58 - Housing for Mill Workers - Petitioner alleged that the developer failed to provide housing for mill workers as required under Regulation 58 - Court noted that the issue was not directly raised in the petition and no specific relief was sought - Held that the petition was vague and lacked merit (Paras 11-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the grant of additional FSI under Regulation 33(1) of the DCR in lieu of road set back area is valid and in public interest, and whether the petitioner has locus standi to file the PIL.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Development Control Regulations
- Additional FSI in lieu of road set back area
- Public Interest Litigation
- Locus standi of social activist
- Regulation 33(1) DCR
- Regulation 58 DCR
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (08) 50
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 6 OF 2016
Dr. Manjula Chellur, C.J., G.S. Kulkarni, J.
Mr. Rakesh Agrawal for the Petitioner, Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar, Addl. Government Pleader for the Respondent State, Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Joel Carlos and Mrs. Shobha Ajithkumar for the Respondent Corporation, Dr. Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate, with Dr. Birendra Saraf, Mr. Aditya Khandeparkar, Mrs. Sukhada Wagle-Kamat, Mr. S. Bhogle i/b. M/s. Hariani & Co., for Respondent No.4
1. The State Of Maharashtra through Ministry Of Urban Development Dept., 2. The Municipal Commissioner, Mumbai Municipal Corporation, 3. The Executive Engineer (B.P.) City-II, 4. M/s. Capricon Realty Ltd., 5. The Chief Office, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public Interest Litigation challenging grant of additional FSI under DCR Regulation 33(1) and alleged failure to provide housing for mill workers under Regulation 58.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to call for records and challenge the grant of additional FSI to Respondent No. 4.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged illegal grant of additional FSI in lieu of road set back area and deprivation of housing for mill workers.
Issues
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to file the PIL?
Whether the grant of additional FSI under Regulation 33(1) is valid?
Whether the developer failed to provide housing under Regulation 58?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the additional FSI was granted illegally and that the developer failed to provide housing for mill workers.
Respondents argued that the petitioner lacked locus standi and that the grant was lawful under DCR.
Ratio Decidendi
The petitioner failed to establish any personal injury or public wrong, and the petition was not maintainable as a PIL. Regulation 33(1) is clear and unambiguous, and the grant of additional FSI was in accordance with law.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition in public interest espouses a cause surrounding interpretation of Regulation No.33(1) of the Development Control Regulations for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short “DCR”) which provides for an additional 'floor space index' (for short 'FSI') in lieu of road set back area.
Petitioner claims to be a social activist and an environmentalist, having worked on such issues since last nine years and more.
By this petition the petitioner states to espouse the rights of poor mill workers and their family members, who are deprived of a shelter despite the beneficial provisions of Regulation 58 of the DCR.
Procedural History
The petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation in 2016. Rule was issued and respondents waived service. By consent, the petition was heard finally. Judgment was reserved on May 5, 2017 and pronounced on August 21, 2017.
Acts & Sections
- Development Control Regulations for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai: Regulation 33(1), Regulation 58
