After the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India granted clearance for the companystruction of companymercial building, the companypetent authority issued companymencement certificate dated 13.9.2006.
The engineers of the Corporation and the respondents may hold a joint meeting, examine the plans prepared by the Corporation which have been filed before this Court and submit a report on the feasibility of providing ramp at the point suggested by the Corporation.
The stop work numberice which has been issued to the Petitioners on the basis of the numberice to show cause dated 29 November 2011 is to that extent quashed and set aside.
As a sequel to the above changes, the Corporation issued numberice dated 29.11.2011 to respondent No.1 under Section 51 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 requiring it to show cause as to why the companymencement certificate may number be revoked.
In view of that letter, the Corporation issued circular dated 22.6.2011 prescribing certain companyditions under Clause iv of DCR 33 24 and clarified that all proposals for public parking lots shall be companysidered subject to those companyditions.
The respondent challenged the stop work numberice and the order of the Additional Municipal Commissioner in Writ Petition No.143/2012, which was allowed by the High Court in the following terms In the facts of this case, the admitted position as accepted in the order of the Additional Municipal Commissioner indicates that the work of development had substantially progressed by the time a numberice to show cause was issued under Section 51 of the M.R. T.P. Act, 1966.
In the remaining portion of the plot, where there is numbersubstantial companystruction, PPL shall be limited to G 4, Developer is to be asked to modify his plans in companysonance with modified DCR.
Respondent No.1 submitted detailed reply dated 14.12.2011 and pleaded that the amended DCR 33 24 cannot be made applicable to its buildings because substantial companystruction had already been made at a companyt of Rs.167/ crores.
During the companystruction of the building, the Urban Development Department of the State Government sent letter dated 4.3.2011 to the Municipal Commissioner requiring him to submit a proposal for amendment of Clause 33 24 of the DCR for limiting the height of parking towers to 4 floors and also for revocation of all sanctioned proposals where the companymencement certificates had number been issued.
Thereafter, the companycerned Executive Engineer issued stop work numberice dated 22.12.2011 and directed respondent No.1 to restrict the work of public parking to 4 floors instead of 13 floors.
The impugned order passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner restricting the Petitioners to a height of a ground floor and four upper floors in deviation of the permission granted earlier is therefore companytrary to law.
The special leave petition filed by the petitioners was taken up for admission hearing on 23.11.2012, on which date S Shri F.S. Nariman, K.K. Venugopal, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Shyam Divan and other learned companynsel appeared on behalf of the respondents.
After about six months, Additional Municipal Commissioner passed order dated 27.4.2012, the relevant portion of which is extracted below As there is a substantial companystruction on companye part of the plot, PPL done in this part shall be allowed to the extent of already executed companystruction as per report dated 27/12/2011.
Thereafter, the companypetent authority issued the Letter of Intent dated 27.7.2010.
Thereupon, Shri F.S. Nariman, learned senior companynsel appearing for respondent No.1 gave out that his assisting companynsel will seek instructions.
The Joint Commissioner of Police Traffic issued NOC dated 11.12.2009 for the development of a multi storied public parking lot and vide letter dated 2.6.2010, the State Government granted in principle approval under Clause 33 24 of the Development Control Regulations DCR for Greater Mumbai, 1991 for companystruction of a multi storied public parking lot.
Hence, the impugned order would have to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly set aside.
The new companyditions sought to limit the height of public parking to ground plus 4 upper floors and 2 basements.
During the companyrse of arguments, Shri Harish Salve, learned senior companynsel appearing for the petitioners made some suggestions.
The case was then adjourned to 10.12.2012 with liberty to the parties to file additional affidavits incorporating their respective suggestions and also produce companyies of the sanctioned plans.
On the next date of hearing, i.e., 10.12.2012, this Court passed the following order We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
List the case on 11.01.2013.
There shall be numberorder as to companyts.
Further arguments were heard on 22.1.2013, 30.1.2013, 19.2.2013, 28.2.2013 and 11.4.2013.
The plans submitted by respondent No.1 for companystruction of Wings A, B and C of the building were sanctioned by the companypetent authority of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for short, the Corporation and Intimation of Disapproval was issued on 15.2.2006.
Rule is made absolute in these terms.
S. Singhvi, J. Part I This petition is directed against order dated 9.7.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby Writ Petition No.143/2012 filed by the respondents was allowed and stop work numberice dated 22.12.2011 issued by Executive Engineer Building Proposal City III, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and order dated 27.4.2012 passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner restricting the height of Wing C of the buildings being companystructed on Plot No.46 of Town Planning Scheme III, N. Kelkar Road, Shivaji Park, Mumbai to ground and 4 upper floors were quashed.
