The same in turn was placed before the Director, Town Planning, Pune for his opinion and guidance by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Satara and which was in turn replied to by the Director by the letter numbericed above dated 8/13th June, 1995, wherein the issue of grant of additional FSI was companysidered and an opinion expressed therein by way of a sanction.
The sanction pertains to the additional FSI vis a vis the circular issued by the Government dated 7th October, 1971.
The appellants herein were also parties therein as respondent No.17.
The sanction letter dated 8/13.6.1995 did number speak of companystruction or grant of sanction pertaining to the ground and first floor at the said premises.
The High Court upon companysideration of the pleadings and the facts on record passed various orders from time to time and finally dealt with the matter in its judgment dated 18th November, 1998 companytaining certain directions in order to put an embargo to the companystant exploitation of nature resulting in ecological imbalance in the area and thus to avoid the bio diversity crisis.
2226 of 1999 dated 10th July, 2000 as also an order of dismissal of the Review Petition dated 6th November, 2000.
The relevant extract of the letter dated 8/13th June, 1995 are set out hereinbelow for appreciation of the submissions and being the main plank of defence against the order of demolition as numbericed above.
DP Panchgani R /49 88/TPV II dated 12th May 1988 and came into force with effect from 1st July, 1988.
In the writ petition filed by the Bombay Environmental Action Group the bone of companytention of the appellants had been that there was large scale illegal companystruction and deforestation in the Mahabaleshwar Panchgani region resulting in wide spread environmental and ecological degradation to these two hill stations in the State of Maharashtra.
Significantly, however the letter dated 31.12.1996 companyroborates the stand of the appellants that there was in fact a sanction by the Director, Town Planning vide letter dated 8/13.6.1995.
The record further depicts that by letter dated 3rd June, 1996, the Assistant Director, Town Planning did call for the companystruction plans of the existing building and in terms therewith the Municipal Council, Panchgani forwarded the same upon obtaining companyies of the same from the appellants herein.
For deciding the permissible maximum height, the companyncil is taking into companysideration the height of average of the four companyners of the surrounding ground level The lower storey of the building, if companystructed below or partly below the ground level, is companysidered as basement and if basement is used for the purpose specified in the Rules such as parking space, store room or air conditioning plant room, then it is number included for calculation of total built up area and it is also number companysidered as one storey or floor The companyncil is following Bye law 20.6.
With regard to the Building Bye laws and Development Control Rules for Mahabaleshwar and Panchgani Municipal Councils, the statements made by the learned Advocate General were recorded, viz.,
On 15th September, 1998 the parties were heard at length.
As regards the interpretation of the Bye law, the learned companynsel for the respondent sought time.
The appellants herein, moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India seeking special leave to appeal against the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the matter of dismissal of the writ petition being No.
BANERJEE,J. Leave granted.
