SHREE RAM URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

p. 1034 Copy page pinpoint

A made by the witness of the Corporation that the entire construction is as per the sanctioned plan and since the Commissioner failed to inspect after notice, thus deemed permission came into being; as such, it was open to SRUIL to raise the construction of PPL up to 16th floor. There was no illegality in the same.

67Copy pinpoint67. Coming to the submission that construction up to the plinth level had not been completed by 7.5.2011 when the architect gave the notice. The notice was given about the PPL, which was received by the Corporation. It was, therefore, open to the Commissioner to inspect and to ensure whether the construction work was done up to the plinth level, and it was as per the sanctioned plan. After that, to decide within 15 days of the notice whether to grant permission for further construction or to refuse it. Thus, when it was open to making inspection as provided in the notice, it having not been done by the Commissioner, it is not open to the Corporation to contend that the work has not been completed up to the plinth level, as it was open to verify the fact on the spot which was not done. There is nothing to doubt the claim of SRUIL for the reasons to be mentioned hereafter.

68Copy pinpoint68. It is submitted on behalf of Janhit Manch that on 16.7.2011, a notice was issued to SRUIL, and an inventory prepared on 22.7.2011 in which it was mentioned that the work of PPL tower was in progress up to plinth, as per commencement certificate granted. Therefore, it is submitted that the construction of the plinth was not complete even on 22.7.2011. Our attention has also been drawn on behalf of Janhit Manch to report dated 11.11.2011 in which it has been mentioned that the work of the PPL is found to be carried out up to the plinth level. Corporation F has issued a notice dated 29.11.2011 to SRUIL concerning the public parking lot. In the notice dated 29.11.2011, it has been mentioned that the construction has not been completed beyond the plinth level as such why the permission should not be revoked, whereas the inventory dated 14.12.2011 of the Corporation indicates that the work up to 6th floor of PPL is carried out. On 14.12.2011, the Corporation has issued second stop-work notice. On 19.12.2011, notice under the MRTP Act was issued. It was mentioned that the work of construction of PPL tower, 1 st to 6th floor (entire), and 7th to 9th floors (Part) is beyond CC granted. Thus, it was mentioned by Corporation that by 19.12.2011, up to 6 th-floor work was complete and 7th to 9th floors were in progress; whereas in the order of the court dated 24.12.2011 which is 4 to 5 days after that, the

SHREE RAM URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR. v. 1035 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

fact is mentioned that the work has been completed up to the 9th floor. A The Court granted the interim injunction because of the deemed permission, according to the notice dated 7.5.2011, to complete the remaining work.

69Copy pinpoint69. It is pertinent to mention here that the witness examined on behalf of the Corporation Mr. Ajay Sadanand Chawan stated in para 2 B of the examination quoted above that so far as completion of the RCC slab at each floor, there should be an interval of 2 to 3 weeks which is a correct statement. In order to complete the RCC slabs up to the 7th floor, reasonable time of 4 to 5 months is required. It is also pertinent to mention here that an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation on 4.5.2012. Para 4 of the affidavit filed by the Corporation is as under: C

“(v) I submit that another Stop Work Notice dated 16th July 2011 was issued by these respondents to respondents no.5 for carrying out the work by misrepresenting by way of showing amalgamation of leasehold and freehold plot, but the same was withdrawn on 11th November 2011 as the same was rectified by the Respondent D no.5 and has given a registered undertaking. The respondent, no.5, was also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. One Crore with MCGM. The Respondent NO.5 has also agreed to convert their freehold land to a leasehold land with the lease of 30 years as against the existing lease of the leasehold land of 999 years. The E said order is not in respect of the construction of public parking building, which to subject matter of the present petition.” (emphasis supplied)

70Copy pinpoint70. It has been clearly admitted that show cause notice dated 16.7.2011 did not relate to PPL, and it was withdrawn on 11.11.2011, F and it related to other parts of the plot of SRUIL. In view of the aforesaid clear admission it is apparent that there is misrepresentation made by Janhit Manch that this show cause notice related to PPL, in fact, same is not related to PPL, as admitted by the Corporation in its affidavit; and secondly when it has been mentioned in the notice dated 11.11.2011 that G the work up to plinth level only was complete, the aforesaid fact was wrongly mentioned as in the notice dated 14.12.2011,issued by the Corporation after few days, it was mentioned that the work up to 7th floor had been completed. It passes comprehension when on 14.12.2011, the Corporation mentions that the work had been carried out up to the 6th floor, and on 19.12.2011, it has also been mentioned that it has been H

p. 1036 Copy page pinpoint

A completed up to 6th floor, and from 7th to 9th storey was in progress, how overnight RCC construction of the various floors could have been completed without lapse of 2 to 3 weeks for each of storey which is a minimum period, as admitted on behalf of the Corporation by its witness also. Thus, obviously, the work up to the plinth level had been carried out by 7th May 2011, the date on which notice was given and deemed permission came into force on the expiry of 15 days. Otherwise, 7th to 9th floors would not have been constructed by 19.12.2011. After that, the total days available to SRUIL were 210 till 19.12.2011. Thus, construction up to the 9th floor is bound to take at least 5 to 6 months even if it is done at a fast speed, and it also included the monsoon season, which also intervened in-between when work is slow or halted. It passes comprehension when on 11.11.2011; it was mentioned that work was only up to the plinth level, how within 35 days, a total of 9 floors could have been constructed, one floor every 3 days. Thus, there was something grossly amiss about what was happening on the part of the Corporation, and absolutely wrong facts had been mentioned in the inventories, which are contradicted by the facts mentioned in the notice for demolition and also by the minimum time required for construction of each floor. Thus, no reliance can be placed on the inventory dated 22.7.2011, and stop work notice dated 16.7.2011 was not related to PPL. Thus, it cannot be said that the work had been carried out in violation of stop-work notice dated 16.7.2011 as submitted on behalf of Janhit Manch. The submission has no legs to stand, and is hereby rejected.

71Copy pinpoint71. In the inspection report dated 22.7.2011, it has not been mentioned what is the name of the representative of SRUIL who was present on the spot. Nor is it mentioned in the subsequent report of F November 2011. The Corporation has falsely mentioned in the notice dated 29.11.2011 that the work of PPL had not been carried out beyond the plinth level on 29.11.2011. How within 19 days, construction of 9 storeys could be completed, can only be explained by some superpower, and it appears to be a fairy tale. It appears that anyhow or somehow, the Corporation sat over the intimation dated 7.5.2011. The Commissioner G did not inspect the plinth of PPL thereafter, and concerning the residential portion, the stop-work notice dated 16.7.2011 had been issued. Notice was withdrawn on 11.11.2011. After that, the notice was issued concerning PPL by mentioning patently wrong facts on 29.11.2011 for reasons best known to the Corporation. We are constrained to observe that the case reflects some severe kind of rivalry and distortion of facts. There was

SHREE RAM URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR. v. 1037 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

an attempt made to ensure that the building is delayed or is demolished by way of filing the PIL one after the other, taking different grounds at different stages, many interventions have been filed. The Human Rights Federation had also attempted to intervene in this Court. Though earlier, a PIL, which was filed by it on 9.5.2014, was dismissed as withdrawn on 7.11.2014 to approach an appropriate forum by way of filing appropriate application/representation. The said intervenor also filed an SLP before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and orders dated 22,25,27.1.2016 passed by the High Court. This Court has rejected the prayer, dismissed the SLP filed by the petitioner to avail of any other remedy. After that, the intervention application has been filed. The intervenor cannot enlarge the scope of PIL. We have no hesitation in rejecting the intervention application filed on behalf of the said Federation. In re: whether construction of PPL is limited up to 4 upper floors because of Circular dated 22.6.2011?

72Copy pinpoint72. It is submitted on behalf of Janhit Manch that as per DCR D 33(24) introduced w.e.f. 20.10.2008, “public car parking lot scheme” was brought into effect. Thereunder for a PPL constructed on a plot of land and handed over free of cost to the Corporation, the plot owner/ developer was entitled to receive incentive FSI inter alia to the extent of 50% of the area of the PPL handed over by him. The unrestricted construction of PPL followed under the said Regulations. E

73Copy pinpoint73. It was submitted on behalf of Janhit Manch that the Government had issued a Circular on 22.6.2011 to limit the PPLs to ground plus four upper floors plus two basements. Thus, in the light of the Circular mentioned above, notice has been issued by the Corporation for the demolition of floors and why commencement certificate should not be F modified or revoked. Notice was issued on 29.11.2011. The counsel has submitted that the notice dated 16.7.2011 was also issued. The Corporation pursuant to a direction issued in PIL No. 43/2012 passed an order on 12.9.2013 relying upon the Circular that construction from 5th to 15th floors of the PPL was not in consonance with the Circular of 2011. Mr. G Ahmadi also submitted that the draft amendment was proposed to amend Regulation 33(24) on 19.3.2012. SRUIL had not submitted any modified plan despite the direction of the Corporation. Later on, an amendment had been incorporated on 6.8.2014 in DCR 33(24), restricting the height as mentioned in the Circular. As such, construction is illegal, and its regularisation could not have been ordered. H

p. 1038 Copy page pinpoint

74Copy pinpoint74. The submission is untenable. We have gone through the various orders passed by the High Court in which aforesaid circular of 2011 has been quashed as the Development Control Regulations, 1991 are statutory in nature and it was not open to issue any direction which is executive in nature, either by the State Government or the Corporation in derogation to the statutory provisions. When Regulation 33(24) was in B vogue, development permission had been granted to SRUIL in the year

2010. The provisions of DCR 33(24) containing no restriction on the number of floors of PPL, came into force on 20.10.2008. Development permission has been granted on 18.6.2010 after 1 year 10 months and thereafter commencement certificate had also been granted on 1.10.2010 C with respect to PPL and notice under which deemed permission accrued under DCR 6(4) had been served on 7.5.2011 by the Architect. Once deemed permission accrued to SRUIL on lapse of 15 days, the construction had been completed in 2012 before the amendment was made in the Regulations in 2014. The order of regularisation was not necessary because of deemed permission. Thus, in our opinion, the High D Court has rightly held that the decision of the Corporation applying the said Circular was impermissible as it did not have the force of law, and it stood quashed by the High Court in other cases. Thus, the submission made by Mr. Ahmadi stands repelled.

75Copy pinpoint75. It could not be said that the Circular of 2011 was supplementary to DCR 33(24). It was clearly in derogation to it and could not have prevailed over a statutory provision. It was not necessary to question it in the present petition by SRUIL as it has no force of law and has been rightly quashed by the High Court in other cases. In re: whether the sanction of the PPL building by way of an endorsement of commencement certificate is illegal?

76Copy pinpoint76. Mr. Ahmadi also submitted that initially, IOD was granted on 24.1.2005. After that, there was an amendment to the residential building on 12.7.2005, and again, there was an amendment of the plan for construction of a residential building on 7.11.2007, 2.2.2009, and G 11.8.2009. SRUIL amended the plans from time to time for a residential building in question. On 8.2.2011, the plan for residential building was sanctioned for 56 floors. Because of the aforesaid, it is submitted on behalf of Janhit Manch that it is a case of departure of substantial nature from the initially sanctioned plan, DCR 6(5) governs the deviation during H construction. Even if the deviation is within the ambit of Regulation 6(5),

SHREE RAM URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR. v. 1039 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

the sanction is necessary under sections 337 and 346 of the Corporation A Act.

77Copy pinpoint77. When we examine the submission, it is apparent that the development permission has been granted. The residential building plan has been approved. The commencement certificate was endorsed from time to time. Amendment was made on 8.2.2011, and commencement B certificate was again endorsed on 8.2.2011 under DCR 33(24). The PPL policy came into force in 2008, and its development plan was sanctioned in 2010, and commencement certificate had been granted on 1.10.2010. The reliance has been placed on Regulation 6(5), the same is extracted hereunder: C “6. Procedure during construction:- (5) Deviation during constructions:—If during the construction of a building, any departure of a substantial nature from the sanctioned plans is intended by way of internal or external additions, sanction of the Commissioner shall be necessary. A revised plan showing D the deviations shall be submitted, and the procedure laid down for the original plans heretofore shall apply to all such amended plans. Any work done in contravention of the sanctioned plans, without prior approval of the Commissioner, shall be deemed as unauthorised.” E

78Copy pinpoint78. It is apparent from the aforesaid Regulation 6(5) that the same is applicable during the construction of the building, and any departure of substantial nature from the sanctioned plan can be allowed by the Commissioner. The provisions of section 337 do not restrict the ambit and scope of Regulation 6(5). Initial permission had been obtained for development, and during construction, further variation could have been F made. The provision of section 346 is of no help as, at no point in time, the development plan had been disapproved. The question of modifying disapproval is not germane. The submission raised by Mr. Ahmadi is held to be devoid of substance and cannot be accepted. In re: Refuge Area G

79Copy pinpoint79. Janhit Manch submitted that the order dated 3.8.2016 passed by the Municipal Commissioner concerning the refuge area is illegal. It was further submitted that in the refuge area, occupants could take refuge and also can be rescued by the fire officers. Access to refuge area has been allowed, which is absurd that a disabled person or an older person H

p. 1040 Copy page pinpoint

A will wait outside the flat, who stay at the 56th floor of the building to be rescued by the fire officer in case of a fire in the building, access to the area is difficult. In the case of senior citizens, disabled persons, small children in the building, it defies common sense to provide for refuge areas at such height, which are almost commensurate with the extent of the habitable area shown and included in the FSI. It was further submitted that the refuge area sanctioned by the Corporation in the order dated 31.8.2016 is a whopping 39,000 sq. mtrs against the habitable area of 54715.19 sq. mtrs., that is almost 60% of the habitable area. The said areas have also been sold to flat buyers under the guise of decks/terraces and are, in fact, a device to get the additional habitable area for sale to flat buyers under the guise of refuge area. This point was agitated in PIL No.43/2012. The High Court has disposed of the said PIL by observing that the refuge area was excessive. It is urged that the Corporation has now accepted the area was excessive. There was a norm of 4%, and now Corporation has said that it has been now reduced to 23%. Janhit Manch has further submitted that the High Court in the impugned judgment observed that the Commissioner should recalculate the refuge area following the National Building Code (NBC). It is also submitted that in the order dated 31.8.2016, it has been observed that NBC cannot be applied in toto as the refuge area is already constructed. As the corporation has granted permission, refuge area has now been reduced to 23% and structural columns can be allowed free of FSI in the permissible area which is illegal, and four full refuge areas in one floor are not necessary and cannot to be taken as refuge area as they cannot be used in case of fire. It is submitted on behalf of Janhit Manch that the decision of the Commissioner is illegal and entirely contrary to F DCR 44(7), which states that the refuge area over 4% of the habitable area has to be counted in FSI. Reliance has been placed on DCR 43(1), which provides that Chapter (iv) of NBC, 2005, shall apply unless the matter is otherwise provided. It is submitted that the reasoning employed by the Commissioner is perverse. On each floor, there are 4 flats of 4 bedrooms. Therefore, the maximum occupancy per flat can be estimated G to be about 6-7 persons or at best 10 persons per flat, which for 4 flats will aggregate to 40 persons. Thus, the occupancy load of 322 persons per floor, to say, is perverse and arbitrary. There is an arithmetical mistake done while calculating the area. It is further submitted that as refuge areas have been provided for four flats, in case of an emergency like a H fire, the fire brigade will find it impossible to access 144 different areas

SHREE RAM URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR. v. 1041 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

at the same point of time. It may not be in the interest of inhabitants. It A is further submitted that the Chief Fire Officer has permitted to provide glass curtain walls on all sides of the building at refuge floors, regarding the individual refuge floors on the four floors of the building. The CFO has permitted glass curtain walls in the rest of the building, which makes the 144 refuge areas inaccessible and unusable as refuge areas. The B areas are shown as refuge areas, and fire escape passages have been sold as decks/terraces to flat purchasers and merged with the flats as usable areas. The purpose is to create a balcony over the terrace. It was submitted that merely because construction has been completed, no equities can be claimed. C

80Copy pinpoint80. It is submitted on behalf of SRUIL that the vires of DCR 2(13), 2(42), and 2(44) have not been questioned. The regulations described above contain a clear and unambiguous provision which was in force at the relevant time. It is also submitted that Regulation 44(7) is significant in this regard. The only requirement is the minimum area of 15 sq.mtrs of a specific width. There is no other restriction on the grant of refuge area. Regulations in respect of fire and safety are not exhaustive, and CFO is an expert authority to consider the requirement of high-rise buildings. It is also submitted that Regulation 44(5) makes it mandatory for high-rise and special buildings and exempts them from FSI calculations under DC Regulation 35(2)(d). It is further submitted that in the NOC granted by the CFO vide order dated 30.12.2006, it has been directed to provide requisite area as approved in the plan. The recommendation made by the CFO is the recommendation of an expert, which has expressly been recognised in DSR 5(ii). The Circular dated 21.9.1993, which is issued by CFO, provides for the size of the refuge area with the minimum requirement of 4% of the total built-up area and the size of each refuge area. The built-up area has been defined as the total built-up area. The circular is not a statutory circular and does not amend the DC regulations. Regulations are in the form of delegated legislation, as observed in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Promoters & Builders Association & Anr. (2004) 10 SCC 796. Directions issued by the Urban Development Department dated G 2.12.1993 required the Municipal Commissioner to withdraw the guidelines issued by the CFO as they were not in conformity with the DC Regulations. It is urged on behalf of SRUIL that DC Regulations cannot be amended except by following the procedure under the Town Planning Act under section 37. Executive Circulars cannot amend the H

p. 1042 Copy page pinpoint

A regulations as observed in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 24. Thus, relying on circular, the submission that the refuge area as recommended by the CFO and the corporation is excessive and contrary to DC Regulations is erroneous and incorrect.

81Copy pinpoint81. The determination of the refuge area was done by the CFO, who is the competent and technical authority. The decision of the CFO has been revisited by 3 successive Commissioners and has been confirmed while approving the sanctioned plan merely because some apprehension was raised about possible misuse of the refuge area. It is impermissible to revisit the said decision. SRUIL submits that while order dated C 31.8.2016 allowed free of FSI of 16262.06 sq.mtrs, that is the area at the external periphery and has further directed that this should be mentioned in and prominently displayed in the building. In Indore Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Dr. Hemalata & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 435, possible misuse of the refuge area had been considered, and the court observed that based on possible misuse, the planning permission cannot be questioned nor can be revoked. This Court has observed: “14. The fact that the sanction is for a residential-cum-commercial purpose is not disputed by the respondents. They have never claimed that they will use the building contrary to the permissible user. Even before the completion of the construction and obtaining of occupation certificate, without issuing a show-cause notice alleging such misuse, an order has been issued alleging a violation of the permitted user. There is no occasion for the second appellant to assume that the respondent is likely to violate the sanctioned user. After the issue of occupancy certificate, if there is any violation of sanctioned use, it is always open to the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate action in accordance with law at that stage. The finding in the order dated 11.4.2000 that there has been a violation of the Rules in this behalf, is unwarranted and at all events premature.” G

82Copy pinpoint82. It is further submitted on behalf of SRUIL that Maharashtra legislature has passed an Act known as the Maharashtra Fire Prevention & Life Safety Measures Act, 2006, which has received the assent of the President on 5.2.2007. Section 3 of which mandates owners to provide for fire prevention and life safety measures and also prescribes a stringent penalty for non-observance of such conditions. A Director or Chief Fire

SHREE RAM URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR. v. 1043 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

Officer has been empowered to prescribe measures for fire prevention and life safety measures. It is further urged that the National Building Code is in respect of the fire protection requirement of high-rise buildings (15 meters and above). As per clause C-1.11 provisions contained in clause 4.12.3 shall apply for buildings except for multi-family dwellings, refuge area of not less than 15 sq.m. shall be provided on the external walls. Clause 4.12.3 of the National Building Code does not stipulate 4% as a requirement of the refuge area. Even if the NBC provides that anything in excess of requirement is to be counted in FSI and that refuge area in excess of 4% is to be counted in FSI, it is submitted that it would require amendment of DCRs 35 and 44(7) by following the procedure under section 37 of the MRTP Act. C

83Copy pinpoint83. When we consider the order that has been passed by the Municipal Commissioner pursuant to the impugned judgment passed by the High Court, re-determining the refuge area, it has been reduced to 23% only. The CFO has considered the higher requirement of building and providing a separate refuge area for each of the flat that is to say that four refuge areas on each floor, one attached to each flat, has been approved by the CFO and the corporation. The permission was granted way back in the year 2006 and the inspection note dated 11.11.2011 indicates that the construction of the residential building had been carried out up to a height of 180 meters i.e., 36th floor, the permission was granted in 2006 and commencement certificate has also been issued from time to time as mentioned above. The construction of the residential building had been raised to the 36th floor in 2011, and Janhit Manch awakened the first time to file PIL No. 43/2012 in the High Court. Thus, it was a belated petition. For fire safety, with respect to the refuge area, the view of the Fire Safety Officer has to prevail not ipse dixit whether it would be appropriate to have more area or the lesser cannot be said to be acceptable which appears to be a hang-over, the objection appears to be more the outcome of some grudge harboured by unknown hands behind Janhit Manch.

84Copy pinpoint84. The objections have been raised on behalf of Janhit Manch G concerning the height of service floor and elevation features like flower beds, ornamental projection, servant toilets, and structural columns concerning which the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation has given in extensive details the reasons for the decision rendered by it. This Court is not an expert in the field of determination of refuge area and in H

p. 1044 Copy page pinpoint

A our opinion, when Corporation and Chief Fire Officer had granted permission, it cannot be said that any tremendous public purpose is going to be served by entertaining the belated objections which appear to be the outcome of some business rivalry between warring groups. We find the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner dated 31.8.2016 with respect to refuge area cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any B manner in the facts and circumstances of the case, mainly due to the fact that permission had been granted by the CFO as well as the corporation which has been questioned belatedly. The order dated 31.8.2016 is upheld as we are not inclined to interfere on the aforesaid grounds in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. C In re: order of the Additional Municipal Commissioner dated 10.11.2016 and the notice under section 51 of the Act :

85Copy pinpoint85. It is submitted on behalf of Janhit Manch that show-cause notice dated 29.11.2011 was issued under section 51 of the MRTP Act. A reply was filed on 14.12.2011 in which stand was taken that provisions of section 51 are not applicable, and despite the notice, SRUIL did not stop the work as such the notice for demolition was issued on 19.12.2011. Ultimately, pursuant to the direction issued in PIL No. 43/2012, it was decided by the Municipal Commissioner on 12.9.2013 that PPL above 5th to 15th floors was not in consonance with the circular of 2011. Thus, no incentive FSI would accrue. It was submitted that the corporation took the stand that no decision was pending on show-cause notice dated 29.11.2011, as stated in the affidavit dated 26.2.2014. The High Court in the impugned judgment held that the Commissioner was required to re- work the FSI; hence, SRUIL ought to have submitted the modified plans. As SRUIL submitted no fresh proposal for development permission, the application for regularisation was not in compliance. On 10.11.2016, the Additional Municipal Commissioner passed an order deciding the show- cause notice dated 29.11.2011 and held that the construction of the PPL had substantially progressed, and as such, the entire PPL can be regularised, is contrary to law.

86Copy pinpoint86. We have held there was deemed permission for PPL under DCR 6(4) as per notice of Architect dated 7.5.2011; thus, the submissions raised cannot be accepted. Moreover, it is not necessary to go into the question of whether the notice dated 29.11.2011 survives or not for the decision, as we have held that there was deemed permission. Thus, there was no question of regularisation of the PPL. The submissions are devoid of substance and as a result of this repelled.

SHREE RAM URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR. v. 1045 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

87Copy pinpoint87. We have not accepted the finding of the High Court concerning deemed permission as to PPL. Thus, the findings recorded in the judgment and order and the submission raised on that basis by Janhit Manch, cannot be said to be sustainable. The consequent order of the Corporation in that regard falls.

88Copy pinpoint88. We place it on record that we have examined the matter on merits, notwithstanding that we are not satisfied with the bona fides of PIL, as the litigation has a chequered history and has several rounds. Hence, we ignore the aforesaid aspect.

89Copy pinpoint89. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the High Court in part and also set aside the finding recorded by the High Court that no deeming permission accrued under Regulation 6(4) of Development Control Regulations, 1991. In our opinion, deemed permission accrued, and concerning the determination of refuge area as per order dated 31.8.2016 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, no interference is called for. Order dated 31.8.2016 passed by the Municipal D Commissioner regarding the refuge area is upheld. Petitions filed by Janhit Manch – PIL [L] No.133/2015, T.C. No.271/2017 and T.C. No.6/2018 deserve dismissal and are, as a result of this, dismissed.

90Copy pinpoint90. Let the Corporation take over PPL and proceed further to decide concerning 13 floors, i.e., 44 to 56 floors of residential building within one month from today. E

Kalpana K. Tripathy Matters disposed of.