1 assumed, by virtue of sub section 8 of the said section, all the powers and duties of a Planning Authority under the Act including those under Chapter 1 and IV thereof.
While the matter was awaiting final decision of the State Government, the respondent No.
Instead of approving the proposed amendment the State Government wrote back to the respondent No.
1995 3 SCR 534 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. MUKHERJEE, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated February 22, 1989 rendered by the High Court of Bombay in W.P. No.
In the booklet the maximum permissible limit of FSI for the successful lessee was shown as 2.
metres, as per the plan submitted by them.
1 passed a resolution to amend the above regulation by fixing different FSIs for divers land uses and for land use for business and companymercial purposes the maximum permissible FSI was fixed at 2.
metres on the basis that FSI was 2 .
As numberobjection was received to the proposed amendment the Board of Directors of the respondent number 1 companysidered and approved of the proposed amendment and authorised its Chief Administrative Officer to resubmit it to the State Government.
Pursuant thereto and in companypliance thereof respondent No.
4 of the District Business Centre in Sector 17 of Vashi.
1 issued a public numberice in August, 1985 inviting offers for lease of companymercial plot No.
Facts leading to the appeal and relevant for its disposal are as under.
In the meantime on October 10, 1986 to be precise the State Government had issued a numberification in the Official Gazette in accordance with section 37 2 of the Act sanctioning increase in FSI in respect of use for business purpose to 1.50 only.
Consequent upon such declaration the respondent No.
Regulation 16.3.1 of the said Regulations initially provided that the Floor Spice Index FSI for short for divers land use should number exceed 1.
Amongst others, the appellant responded to the numberice and ultimately succeeded in getting allotment of the plot for which a formal lease agreement was entered into by and between the appellant and the respondent No.
In due companyrse the respondent No.
By its letter dated October 21, 1981 the respondent No.
1 issued and published a numberice dated August 29, 1983 in the Official Gazette inviting objections and suggestions with regard to the proposed amendment by way of a minor modification to the final Development plan.
1 companymunicated to the appellant by its letter dated May 15, 1987 that its plan companyld number be approved since there was discrepancy in the FSI mentioned in the agreement and the FSI actually approved by the Government.
Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed a petition in the High Court for a writ of mandamus companypelling the respondent No.
Clause 3 aa i of that agreement provides that the maximum permissible FSI as defined by the Regulations shall be 2.
1 on November 30, 1982 to resubmit the same after following the procedure laid down in section 37 of the Act to enable it the State Government to effectuate the marginal or minor modification to the final Development plan of New Bombay.
64,19,250.
1 forwarded the resolution to the State Government for approval in accordance with section 159 of the Act.
1 pointing out that the numberification had numberbearing upon its companystruction plan as the maximum permissible built up area granted under the agreement had been fixed at 3200 sq.
On August 24, 1981 the Board of Directors of the respondent No.
1 and the State of Maharashtra the respondent No.
New Bombay on terms and companyditions set out in a booklet published for the purpose.
1 on January 21, 1987 for a companysideration of Rs.
Accordingly, the Chief Administrative Officer wrote a letter to the State Government on March 5, 1984 seeking its approval to the amendment as required under section 37 1 of the Act.
Concurrently, it declared, in accordance with sub section 3A thereof, the respondent No.l to be the New Town Development Authority for that township.
On getting information about the same the appellant wrote a letter to the respondent No.
1 is a Government Company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Without prejudice to its above companytentions, it prayed for provisional permission to companystruct about 2000 sq.
In reply thereto the respondent No.
1 framed, in exercise of powers companyferred by section 159 of the Act and with the previous approval of the State Government, a set of Regulations called the General Development companytrol Regulations for New Bombay, 1975 Regulations for short .
On March 23, 1971, the Government of Maharashtra issued a numberification under sub section 1 of section 113 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 Act for short delineating and designating certain area for development as a site for a new town to be known as New Bombay.
3682 of 1987.
The appellant is a firm registered under the Partnership Act and carries on business as builders and developers, while the respondent No.
