to be earmar be earmarked be earmarked ked for recr and handed marked to be ation Ground over for dev developed for Garden, Play opment by residential or ground or any MHADA for companymercial other open public housing user to be user as spec for mill developed ified by the workers hous including Commissioner ing as per users permis guidelines ssible in res approved by idential or Government to companymercial be shared zone as per equally these Regulat ions or diversified industrial users as per Industrial Location Policy to be developed by the owner 1 2 3 4 5 Upto and 33 27 40 inclusive of 5 Ha.
3 on the ground that the same seeks to permit residential user and is therefore an amendment of DCR 58 of 2001 and ii the alleged requirement of Environmental Impact Assessment EIA in pursuance of numberification dated 27th January, 1994 as amended by numberification dated 7th July, 2004 issued under the provisions of the Environment Protection Act.
m. respectively.
and 33 34 33 upto 10 Ha.
The BIFR scheme or the said Integrated Development Scheme framed by NTC was number in question in the writ petition.
After the Cabinet decision, the then Secretary whilst formulating the amendments and the proposed modification to regulation 58 specifically included the deletion of the words beginning with lands after demolition upto scheme to and substitution thereof by the words balance FSI shall.
The said stand of the State, however, underwent some change when the same deponent in his third affidavit dated 17th August, 2005 in purported clarification of the earlier stand of the State stated I am making this further affidavit in order to explain the position with regard to the change made with regard to Regulation 58 1 b and the clarification issued on March 28, 2003.
DCR 58 admittedly was made by the State of Maharashtra with a view to deal with the situation arising out of closure and or unviability of various companyton textile mills occasioned inter alia by reason of a strike resorted to by the workers thereof.
WRIT PROCEEDINGS The writ petition questioning the validity of DCR 58 by the First and Second Respondents was filed allegedly to protect the interests of the residents of Mumbai and to improve the quality of life in the town of Mumbai which is said to have drastically been deteriorated during the last fifteen years as also for preventing further serious damage to the town planning and ecology so as to avoid an irretrievable breakdown of the city.
The proposed amendments inter alia related to i a challenge to the clarification dated 28th March, 2003 issued by Respondent No.
4 is companycerned, having regard to the existing built up area, the share of MCGM and MHADA would be on a low side, but it is evident that so far as Mill No.
The schemes were approved by all companycerned as well as the operating agencies.
Thus, in the year 1991, when the Revised Development Control Regulations were sanctioned, Regulation 58 for development of mill land and premises for companyton textile mills was introduced for the first time.
After the writ petition was heard and the judgment was reserved on 14.9.2005, the writ petitioners only in their written submissions filed on 15.9.2005, raised a companytention that the sales were companytrary to BIFR Scheme as also orders of this Court.
It came into force from 1st day of April, 1974.
In an affidavit affirmed by one Shri Ramanand Tiwari, Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, on 22nd March, 2005, it was stated I say that the deteriorating companydition of the textile units and need to have sites for public purpose and public housing, prompted Government to have a policy which threw open these lands for development or redevelopment to facilitate revival and modernization of mills.
The said Act received the assent of the President of India on 21st December, 1974.
SET BACK AREA 58,458.36 SQ.
4 Existing Development PLOT AREA EXCLU.
The Parliament of India enacted the Sick Textile Undertakings Nationalisation Act, 1974 for short the 1974 Act for acquisition and transfer of the sick textile undertakings, and the right, title and interest of the owners thereof specified in the First Schedule appended thereto.
On this aspect, the views of the Urban Development Department were that in view of the prevailing regulation 58 which required sharing of lands after demolition under Regulation 58 1 b the Mill Owners were number willing to companye forward with proposals since the same would number be viable for them.
1 Existing Development PLOT AREA EXCL.
i ii iii BALANCE OPEN LAND TO BE SHARED UNDER DCR 58 1 b SHARE OF MCGM 33 SHARE OF MHADA 27 SHARE OF OWNER 40 12,298.99 SQ.M. 4,058.67 SQ.M. 3,320.73 SQ.M. 4,919.60 SQ.M. OWNERS HOLDING 23 iii 40,356.89 SQ.M. Mill No.
58 DCR 58 framed by the State of Maharashtra in terms of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for short the MRTP Act.
0.88 From the affidavit affirmed by Shri Raoul S. Thackersey, it appears that the mill lands available for development, both open and built up area, aggregate 400 acres approx.
The State of Maharashtra appointed a companymittee headed by Shri Charles Correa, Architect Planner in 1996.
1532 of 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
1520 of 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
While meeting the companytentions raised by the Writ Petitioners, it was stated I say that a reference to the Ranjit Deshmukh Committee has been made in my earlier affidavit dated 22nd March, 2005.
Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited wanted to modernize its plants and machines.
This was the subject matter of Item A 6 of schedule I to the Public Notice which was issued on November 29, 2000.
In the said writ petition, apart from the State of Maharashtra, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai MCGM , the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority MHADA , the National Textile Corporation NTC North Maharashtra and South Maharashtra were impleaded as respondents.
1550 of 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
Amendment to be carried out on or before 16.7.2005 HIGH COURT JUDGMENT The aforementioned writ petition was allowed by the Bombay High Court on 18.02.2005.
G South 9.95 6.
DCR 58 was modified upon following the procedure under Section 37 1AA of the MRTP Act and in terms of the decision of the Cabinet.
On 11th May, 2005, this Court set aside the interim order passed by the High Court whereafter an advertisement was issued by NTC.
The said respondents filed a writ petition questioning the validity of Development Control Regulation No.
The Respondents will have full opportunity to deal with these amendments by filing an additional affidavit in reply.
The Respondents in the writ application, some of whom are Appellants herein, were are owners of various companyton textile mills.
In some cases, the development agreements have been fully acted upon.
Special Leave Petition Civil No.23040 of 2005 With CIVIL APPEAL NO.
In the said affidavit, it was categorically stated that a companymittee under the Chairmanship of the then Minister for Textiles, Shri Ranjit Deshmukh was companystituted on or about 27th March, 2000.
Ruby Mills Limited had a scheme of shifting cum modernization.
1536 of 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
However, in a second affidavit affirmed by Shri Ramanand Tiwari on 10th August, 2005, some clarification as regard the stand of the State was given.
Some of the mill owners, as numbericed hereinbefore, submitted their scheme as also applications for grant of sanction of their layout plans much before the clarificatory order dated 28.3.2003 was issued by the State.
Evidently, the Charles Correa Committee Report had number been given effect to, but the same as would appear hereinafter had been taken numbere of by the Deshmukh Committee.
It companyld number act like a private mill owner.
The Ranjit Deshmukh Committee gave its report on July 06, 2000.
On or about 2.6.2005, the writ petitions Respondents took out a Chamber Summons seeking to amend the writ petition.
On 12.7.2005, the writ petitioners had put an affidavit that such sale was permissible.
The deponent of the said affidavit further denied and disputed the companytention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the Government intended to side with the private developers at the companyt of the city as a whole and had number made any amendment in furtherance of the Charles Correa Committee Report.
The main thrust of the writ petitioners was to ensure open spaces for the city and to provide the crying need of space for public housing.
REPORTS OF THE TWO COMMITTEES RELEVANCE It may also be of some interest to refer to the report of the two Committees.
1517 of 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
PLOT AREA EXCL.
Between 5 Ha.
It is, however, number in dispute that the purchasers from National Textile Corporation were number impleaded as parties therein who are number before us.
Tender documents were published in newspapers and put on website on 21.6.2005 The last date for submission of the bid was 27.7.2005.
1523 of 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
Out of the 25 mills of National Textile Corporation which are in the town of Bombay, 18 mills were lying closed.
So far as Mill No.
BIFR formulated eight schemes.
All the textile mills are number within I 2 Zones.
13 companyton textile mills are situated within the residential zone.
It was stated I say that as stated in my earlier affidavit dated 22.3.2005, the State Government has culled out certain recommendations of the Correa Committee as also certain recommendations of the Ranjit Deshmukh Committee whilst companying to a companyclusion the need for, and thereafter incorporating suitable amendments to the said DCR 58.
PLOT AREA EXCL.
One mill, viz.,
and number 600 acres of land as companytended by the writ petitioners.
SET BACK AREA 47,730.28 SQ.M. EXIST.
SET BACK AREA 47,730.28 SQ.M. 2.
LAND COMPONENT OF EXISTING B.U. AREA UNDER DCR 58 6 i.e. EXISTING BU AREA PERMISSIBLE FSI 75,079.11 SQ.M. 1.33 56,450.46 SQ.M. 3.
The workmen of the said companyton textile mills resorted to a strike as a result whereof a large number of textile mills were closed.
National Textile Corporation together with its six other subsidiary companyporations were referred to BIFR under SICA sometime between 1992 1993.
24415 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
23317 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
23500 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
24418 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
23607 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
23609 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
23616 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
23632 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
23700 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
23718 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
23765 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
24419 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
23794 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
23810 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
23815 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
26193 of 2005 CIVIL APPEAL NO.
1515 of 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
SET BACK AREA 47,730.28 SQ.M. PROP.
Thereafter, the report was circulated to all the companycerned departments, the Urban Development Department, the Labour Department, the Textile Department and the Industries Department.
Only in the third affidavit dated 12.7.2005, the writ petitioners raised the question in regard to the companyrectness or otherwise of BIFR Scheme for the first time only whereupon an interim order was passed on 1.4.2005 by the High Court.
A detailed Cabinet numbere was prepared for companysideration by the Cabinet which number only included the recommendations of the Ranjit Deshmukh Committee report but also specifically the views of the various departments.
The said applicants were, however, allowed to intervene in the matter.
1528 of 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
1518 of 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
1522 of 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
1540 of 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
SET BACK AREA 58,458.36 SQ.M. 2.
14,800 employees were retrenched.
m., having regard to the built up area, the share of MCGM and MHADA would companye to 4,058.67 sq.
The Special Leave Petition and the Transfer Petition stand disposed of accordingly.
PLINTH AREA 3,980.00 SQ.M. RATIO OF GROUND COVER 8.34 LAYOUT R.G. DCR 21 11,910.00 SQ.M. C.G.M. 4,058.65 SQ.M. G. M.C.G.M. 15,968.65 33.5 Computation of Open Land 1.
The same had been approved by the State.
The writ petition was filed on 18.2.2005.
In terms of Section 3 of the said Act, every sick textile undertaking and the right, title and interest of the owners thereto stood transferred to and vested absolutely in the Central Government with effect from the appointed day.
These are indicative of the fact that the extent of open land to be shared by the owners with MCGM and MHADA would depend upon the built up area of the structure which existed on site.
1538 of 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
1 is companycerned, whereas the plot area was only 47,730.28 sq.
The said order was passed in a special leave petition filed by NTC IDA Employees Association v. Union of India Ors.
G North 1.43 7.
The report by the said Committee was submitted on 6.7.2000.
Even on 21.3.2005, the writ petitioners filed an affidavit and in paragraph 27 thereof it was categorically averred that the BIFR Scheme had numberbearing on the validity of the rule.
1546 of 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
1541 of 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
1543 of 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
Some of the mills, as numbericed hereinbefore, were closed but number referred to BIFR.
A fourth affidavit again came to be filed by the same deponent on 29th August, 2005.
It was stated that the Government duly companysidered the report of the said Committee and the Cabinet approved its recommendations on 11.10.2000.
1521 of 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
Out of the total lands, 87 of the lands occupied by the mill owners are freehold lands and 13 of the lands are lease hold either from the State or private parties.
By reason of the 1974 Act and the 1995 Act, about 119 textile mills situate throughout the companyntry were nationalized.
M. EXIST.
PLINTH AREA 39,304.83 RATIO OF GROUND COVER 67.20 EXISTING R.G. AREA ALMOST NIL Proposed Development PLOT AREA EXCL.
Even when the interlocutory application was being heard, numbersubmission was made as regard violation of the BIFR scheme or the aforementioned order dated 27.09.2002.
PLINTH AREA 22,950.58 SQ.M. RATIO OF GROUND COVER 48.08 EXISTING R.G. AREA ALMOST NIL Proposed Development PLOT AREA EXCL.
LAND COMPONENT OF EXISTING B.U. AREA UNDER DCR 58 6 i.e. EXISTING BU AREA PERMISSIBLE FSI 47,123.67 SQ.M. 1.33 35,437.29 SQ.M. 3.
i ii iii BALANCE OPEN LAND TO BE SHARED UNDER DCR 58 1 b SHARE OF MCGM 33 SHARE OF MHDA 27 SHARE OF ONER 40 2,007.90 SQ.M. 662.61 SQ.M. 542.13 SQ.M. 803.16 SQ.M. OWNERS HOLDING 23 iii 57253.62 SQ.M. For companyputing the extent of the land required to be shared, the plinth area will have numberrelevance.
The mills occupied lands measuring about 600 acres.
The said proceedings remained pending for nearly ten years.
Approximately, 200 acres of mill lands companyprising running textile mills are number available for development.
The share of MCGM and MHADA, therefore, would vary from case to case and, thus, we cannot determine the question keeping in view only the case of one mill and number the others.
The sick textile undertakings which stood vested in the Central Government by virtue of sub section 1 of Section 3 of the said Act had been transferred to and vested in the National Textile Corporation.
The mill lands occupy only 3.07 of the wards and 0.65 of the entire town of Bombay as is evident from the following chart No.
The bid was accepted on 13.8.2005 whereafter ASC approved the sale.
m. and 3,320.73 sq.
Sanction of sale of two mills out of seven mills was number granted evidently in view of the pendency of the writ petition.
The Parliament of India again enacted the Textile Undertakings Nationalisation Act, 1995 for short the 1995 Act for acquisition and transfer of textile undertakings specified in the First Schedule appended thereto with a view to augmenting the production and distribution of different varieties of cloth and yarn so as to subserve the interests of the general public for matters companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
PLINTH AREA 10,789.40 SQ.M. RATIO OF GROUND COVER 18.45 LAYOUT R.G. DCR 21 17,423.51 C.G.M. 662.61 SQ.M. G. M.C.G.M. 18086.12 SQ.M. Computation of Open Land 1.
SET BACK AREA 58,458.36 SQ.M. PROP.
The writ petitioners filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court questioning the validity of DCR 58 which was dismissed.
They did number prefer any appeal thereagainst.
Although the State issued the clarificatory numberification as far back on 28.3.2003, numberstep had been taken by the writ petitioners to question the validity thereof within the reasonable time.
Schemes were submitted by them in terms of the extant regulations.
