The said order was passed beyond the statutory period of 60 days, therefore, permission shall be deemed to have been granted by the Authority in terms of sec tion 13 3 of the Act.
While the said appeal was pending the writ petitioner invoked the writ .jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court praying more or less the same remedy as was prayed in the appeal.
The judgment in the earlier writ petition had been delivered on 5th April, 1984 by which order of the Metropolitan Authority passed under section 13 3 had been set aside.
The writ petitioner had an adequate alternative statutory remedy.
BMRDA applied for certified companyy of the judgment on 18th April, 1984, on 24th May 1984 the Company companymunicated the operative part of the order dated 5th April, 1984 to BMRDA.
Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the impugned order dated February 23, 1978 passed by Minister for Housing and BMR.D.A. is set aside and so also the order passed by respondent No.3 rejecting the application and which was companymunicated to respondent No.4 on September 8, 1977.
The BMRDA had numberjurisdiction to pass any order under section 13 3 of the Act on 17th September, 1984, as the requisite period of 60 days provided by under section 13 3 had expired by that time.
Respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the application dated July 14, 1977 filed by respondent No.4 under sub section 2 of Section 13 of the Act, in accordance with the observation made in this Judgment and pass appropriate orders.
by the Bombay High Court, the order of the State Government as well as the order passed by the Metropolitan authority under Section 13 3 of the Act rejecting the application of the respondent Company were set aside with a direction to the Administrator of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay to companysider the application afresh and pass appropriate orders.
The plan was approved by.
The Metropolitan Authority took up the application of the respondent Company under Section 13 3 of the Act for reconsideration in pursuance of the above order of the Court and by the order dated 19th September, 1984 rejected the application under Section 13 3 .
Respondent No.3 shall pass the orders as expeditiously as possible.
On the very next day, the Writ Petition was also filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by the respondent Company, challenging the order of the Metropolitan Authority passed under Section 13 3 rejecting the application of the respondent Company under Section 13 2 of the Act on the ground that in the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in view of the lapse of sixty days stipulated in Section 13 3 of the Act, permission was deemed to have been granted to the respondent Company by the Metropolitan Authority and in that view of the matter, the order of rejection passed under Section 13 3 was illegal and without jurisdiction.
The pennission was refused by the Metropolitan Authority under Section 13 3 of the Act on 8th September, 1977.
Soon thereafter a Writ Petition was filed by the residents of Colaba challenging the above order of the State Government under Section 13 3 of the Act allowing the appeal of the respondent Company against the order of the Metropolitan Authority.
By a judgment dated 5.4.1984 passed.
It was held by Division Bench that the order dated 17th September, 1984 refusing to gram permission passed by the Authority was illegal.
In the meantime, in 1975, the State Legislature of Maharashtra enacted the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Act, 1974 Maharashtra Act No.
the Corporation and on 13th September 1974 Intimation of Disapproval I.O.D. was granted to the Company under section 346 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, It was stipulated in the I.O.D. that numberwork should be started unless the existing structures proposed to be removed were in fact removed.
The said two houses were occupied by tenants.
The plan was for companystruction of a thirty storeyed building utilising Floor Space Index for short FSI of 2.45 of the said plot.
Against that, the respondent Company filed appeal on merits before the State Government on 16th October, 1984 which is still pending.
The companytention of the appellant in this appeal is that in the first place the writ petition should number have been entertained.
The material part of the order was as under?
124126 Wodehouse Road, Colaba, Bombay, to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay.
IV of 1975 to provide for the establishment of an authority for the purpose of Planning, companyordinating and supervising the proper, orderly and rapid development of the areas failing within that region.
In companying to this decision the Division Bench took numbere of the following facts.
The Executive Committee of the BMRDA sat on 18th July, 1984 and again on 24th July, 1984 and finally decided to reject the application of the respondent Company under section 13 2 of the Act on 17th September, 1984.
The Development Control Rules existent at the relevant time permitted companystruction of building on the S.I. of 2.45 under R 8 F.S.I. Zone in which the above property was situated.
There was a direction to pass a fresh order, that direction was number carried out at all.
On 28th May, 1974, Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. submitted a plan for companystruction of two houses at premises No.
The writ petitioner had in fact already taken advantage of alternative remedy provided by the Statute and had preferred an appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal.
SEN, J. Leave granted.
The respondent Company preferred an appeal to the State Government under Section 13 4 of the Act on 19th September, 1977 which was allowed by the State Government on 23rd February, 1978.
In pursuance of the I.O.D. granted by the Corporation, the Company initiated proceeding for eviction of the tenants from the existing structures on the property in question.
Ultimately in August 1979, the tenants were evicted and old structures were demolished.
Accordingly, the respondent Company was given a companymencement certificate under Section 344 and 345 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act on 31st March, 1980.
