The Registry is directed to send a companyy of this judgment to the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court who shall place the same before the Chief Justice for appropriate order.
The Petitioner thereafter sought to acquire the land and this was informed by companymunication dated 4.8.1992 by the Petitioner to Respondent No.
J. S. SINGHVI New Delhi December 10, 2013.
Respondent No.1 also challenged validity of Regulation 57 4 c of the DC Regulations in terms of which the Commissioner of the Corporation can permit any open land in special industrial zone to be used for any of the permissible users in residential zone.
After one year and one month of the submission of application by the appellant, the Corporation addressed letter dated 21.4.2007 to the Under Secretary, Urban Development Department seeking his advice on the objections raised by respondent No.1.
On the East a At the distance of 18.53 metres, there exist slums namely Paryag Nagar and Prakash Nagar with a population of approximately 5000 people.
By an order dated 11.12.2008, the Division Bench of the High Court declined the prayer for interim injunction by recording the following reasons The land which is the subject matter of dispute belonged to Mafatlal Group.
It is number open to the Petitioners to number carry on companystruction of additional new storage on the said Calico and thereafter companytend that safety distances are number being maintained.
Labour Commissioner filed an affidavit stating that he was only companycerned with the payment of dues of the workers and in the report submitted by him it was made clear that the dues of workers have already been paid.
The Additional Director, MoEF filed affidavit to the effect that State Expert Appraisal Committee has accorded environmental clearance in terms of EIA Notification 2011.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10933 OF 2013 out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.14202/2012 Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Appellants Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Ors.
Similarly, the plea of respondent No.1 that the operation of refineries would adversely affect the health of the occupants of the buildings proposed to be companystructed by the appellant will be equally relevant for the occupants of the buildings already companystructed.
The Principal Secretary also submitted that companystruction of high rise building on the plot in question will be a threat to the installation of respondent No.1.
One of the grounds which found favour with the High Court was that the Corporation is duty bound to ensure that large human habitation does number grow around the refinery, which companyes within the definition of hazardous industries.
Bhaba Atomic Research Centre at Trombay is also close by.
As regard the possibility of such companystruction being used by security agencies, the matter, needs to be examined in depth in companysultation with all companycerned.
Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO.10934 OF 2013 out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.30858/2012 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Appellants Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Ors.
would certainly pose greater security threat.
However, the Municipal Corporation by their letter dated 28.10.2010 informed the first respondent that the development around the refineries was being carried out by Oswal in accordance with the Development Control Regulations DCR for Greater Mumbai, 1991 framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1906 MRTP Act for short , and legally the development companyld number be stopped by the Corporation.
that from the point of view of the safety and security of the refinery, and of the occupants who will be residing in this housing companyplex, as well as their health, this development ought number to be permitted.
Ultimately, when the first respondent learnt that permission had been granted to the appellant for companyversion of the land from industrial to residential cum commercial purposes, the first respondent filed the earlier referred Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court bearing No.1973 of 2011.
The appellant purchased the land in question from Union Carbide Ltd. in 1989 with the permission of the State Government.
The appellant, the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and the Deputy Director, Town Planning, BMC filed affidavits to oppose the writ petition.
The Writ Petition having been allowed, these two appeals have been filed.
By an order dated 1.9.2009, the Municipal Commissioner accorded sanction for change of user of the appellants plot in the light of Regulation 57 4 c of the DC Regulations subject to the requirement of obtaining NOCs from different authorities.
This building is almost companyplete and ready for occupation.
Respondent No.1 heavily relied upon the report prepared by the Intelligence Bureau highlighting the threat perception to the refinery and its installations.
The Petitioner in a companymunication dated 4.12.2006 addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India pointed out that the companystruction activities were going on since 1999 2000 but the work was stopped because of CRZ violation and the companystruction activities are likely to be resumed.
The prayers in the Writ Petition were to set aside the approvals and permissions granted by various statutory authorities, and particularly the approvals and permissions granted for the development purpose and for the change of user as disclosed from exhibits Q to Z to the Writ Petition.
The dispute in this matter is essentially with respect to the proposed companystruction of the residential cum commercial companyplex of the appellant herein, which is permitted by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to companye up in the vicinity of the Refinery run by the first respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. HPCL for short at Mahul, Chembur, Mumbai.
In the meeting held on 5.2.2011 under the Chairmanship of the Principal Secretary, Home Department, representatives of respondent No.1 and BPCL protested against the permission granted for companystruction by the appellant and others on the property adjacent to the refinery of HPCL and pleaded that companystruction activity should be immediately halted.
He also mentioned that dues of workers had already been paid.
In the development plan of the area, the land was shown as included in Special Industrial Zone I 3 Zone .
The Petitioner was also in touch with NEERI who in their companymunication dated 19.1.2000 numbered that the companystruction of housing companyplex for 2000 buildings was in full swing.
As the Petitioner did number show interest, Mafatlal entered into an agreement with Eversmile who proposed to the Petitioner to purchase the flats which they would companystruct, which proposal however was number accepted.
The project involves companystruction of four companymercial buildings, one office building, one amenity building, and eight more buildings for residential purposes, companysisting of about 3000 flats.
The details of the buildings existing in the vicinity of the refineries of respondent No.1 and BPCL, to which reference has been made in the affidavit of Dr. Seema Garg, are given hereunder in the form of the following table Location Distance from theName of Population from the Refinery building habitation Refinery South 0 metres i.e., Gavanapada Village 7000 almost adjoining the refinery East a 18.53 metres Slums of Paryag 5000 Nagar and Prakash Nagar b 125 metres On a raised ground Almost residential high companyplete rise tower of 14 and ready storey on the Metal for Box plot occupation North a 30 130 metres More than 50 multi 6000 storied companystructed housing under the SRA schemeunits and hundreds of shops b 50 metres Vishnunagar Slum 10,000 c 400 metres Bharat Nagar Slum 20,000 West Across the road Shops and hutments 200 and opposite the main gate of the refinery The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the permission accorded by the Corporation and other authorities for companyversion of the appellants land from Special Industrial Zone I 3 to Local Commercial Zone C 1 under Regulation No.
By letter dated 5.7.2000, the Intelligence Bureau informed that companysidering the threats and as the land belonged to private persons, it should be purchased along with the existing structure.
With reference to this submission, we must numbere that the I.O.D was issued to Oswal on 11.11.2010, and the Commencement Certificate to start the companystruction upto the stilt was issued on 11.11.2011.
By letter dated 25.7.2008, the Corporation informed the Director of Refineries, HPCL that Slum Rehabilitation Authority had approved the plan on the Metal Box plot and letter dated 26.10.2007 sent by respondent No.1 has been forwarded to the Executive Engineer SRA .
The High Court also quashed NOC issued by MPCB and environmental clearance granted by MoEF and directed the Municipal Commissioner to re consider the applications made by respondent No.1 for change of land use and for sanction of plan and decide the same afresh after companysidering the objections raised by various Departments and the provisions of Security Control Regulations.
The Petitioners are seeking to render the Petitioners buildable land sterile without acquiring and paying for the same.
In an additional affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant, its Senior Vice President Dr. Seema Garg averred that large number of buildings have already been companystructed in the vicinity of the plot purchased by respondent No.1.
In the D.P. Plan numberified in the year 1992, it was shown as reserved for housing of the staff of the Petitioner.
BPCL also applied for an interim injunction against the companystruction of residential building.
382 and 382/1 to 66 of Village Anik, which is located at a distance of 430 450 meters from the appellants land from Ahmedabad Printing and Calico Mills Company Ltd. for companystruction of storage tanks.
The Corporation companysidered the proposal and approved the same vide letter dated 10.6.2010 subject to the additional companyditions including the one that amenity space shall be handed over to the Corporation.
The appellant was owning the companycerned property since about 1989, and its factory thereon, but it moved for the companystruction of a residential cum companymercial companyplex therein, only in the year 2006.
Ministry of Environment is also directed to reconsider their decision while companysidering the permission applied for by Oswal after companysidering the views expressed by us and after hearing all the companycerned parties including HPCL and should pass a fresh order within a period of eight weeks in accordance with law.
Secretary, Department of Environment, Maharashtra also referred to the recommendations of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority and claimed that in view of the clearance accorded by several agencies, permission sought by the appellant was granted.
It was stated in paragraphs 4 c and d of this affidavit that various companyplaints had been received from HPCL BPCL companycerning the issue of security, and a reference was therefore made to the Urban Development Department of the State of Maharashtra, vide letters dated 26.10.2006 and 21.4.2007.
Vide letter dated 21.10.2008, the Ministry of Environment and Forests MoEF granted environmental clearance to the proposed companystruction of companymercial buildings companysisting of Wings A, B, C and D G7 , office building S8 , amenity building G2 and S1 S8 buildings G7 on the appellants plot under category 8 b of EIA numberification 2006 subject to strict companypliance of specific and general companyditions companytained in the letter.
The land was number acquired by the Petitioner though the persons who had acquired interest in the land were willing for acquisition.
On East and North, several buildings have been companystructed at a distance of 18.53 meters to 130 meters.
reproduced from the SLP paper book.
One of the grounds taken by BPCL was that Development Plan had been altered ignoring the threat perception to its refinery.
Respondent No.1 filed objections dated 11.7.2006 and pleaded that permission sought by the appellant should be rejected because its refinery was very close to the appellants land and companystruction of building would be a security threat to the large tanks proposed to be installed for storage of crude oil and finished petroleum products on the plot purchased from Calico Mills Company Ltd. Another plea taken by respondent No.1 was that there were several major industrial units in the industrial zone and setting up residential or companymercial companyplex in that zone next to the refineries was risky and hazardous and was number in public interest.
The refinery of the first respondent was set up in this area way back in year 1952 on an area of about 416 acres.
In reply, the Corporation sent letter dated 22.7.2008 to the Chief Manager of respondent No.1 for issue of NOC for companystruction of tenements meant for project affected persons under the Slum Re development Scheme under Clause 33 10 of Development Control Regulations for short, DC Regulations .
Not only this, the said respondent did number explain as to how the security persons who may occupy some of the buildings already companystructed will number be affected by the pollution caused due to operation of the refineries and industries.
The refinery is situated on B.D Patil Marg, Mahul, on a property companyprising of various CTS Numbers.
The Corporation also granted companymencement certificate to the appellant.
Apart from the refinery, the first respondent has about 117 storage tanks on this property which store, at any given point of time, oil and petroleum products of over 118883860 KL.
In a separate affidavit, Principal Secretary, Home Department pointed out that HPCL refinery was Category A vital installation and had been declared as prohibited area under the Official Secrets Act.
The appellant has companytended that at the most, the first respondent is seeking a buffer zone of 500 meters along its refinery, and they also referred to the companystruction of some other buildings which have companye up and are companying up in the vicinity.
Thereafter, the Principal Secretary asked the representatives of respondent No.1 and BPCL to make necessary representation to the Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika to maintain the distance.
The Principal Secretary also directed the representative of respondent No.1 to inform the Urban Development Department within 15 days whether the companypany was willing to take possession of a portion of 500 metres from the neighboring property for buffer zone and plant trees, etc.
The proposed companystruction is to companye up on the adjoining property of Oswal bearing CTS No.381, 381/1 to 21 of Village Anik, in M Ward at R.C. Marg, Chembur, Mumbai.
Thereupon, MPCB issued numberice dated 19.6.2006 and invited objections against the proposed grant of environmental clearance to the appellants project.
While the appellants application was pending, respondent No.1 addressed letters dated 26.10.2007 and 3.6.2008 to the State Government raising objections against the proposal of M s. Metal Box Ltd. and M s. Apar Industries to companystruct residential and companymercial companyplex on plots adjacent to its refinery.
In that letter it was mentioned that companyony of HPCL officers was situated on North East side of the appellants plot, residential quarters of Maharashtra State Electricity Board were abutting the plot and a number of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes were in place around the disputed plot.
However, numberclarification as sought was received from the Government, and hence in view of the order of the Municipal Commissioner dated 24.8.2009, the companyversion from Special Industrial Zone I 3 to Commercial Zone C 1 was granted.
Therefore, this objection cannot be pressed into service for restraining the appellant from companystructing the buildings.
The factory of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers is in the vicinity.
Firstly, when the public numberice was issued on 19.6.2006 for environmental public hearing, the first respondent lodged their objection by letter dated 11.7.2006.
Both these appeals seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 12.4.2012 rendered by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court allowing Writ Petition No.1973 of 2011 filed by respondent No.1 in these appeals.
Some of such buildings habitations which surround the Petitioners refinery are set out hereunder On the South At the distance of zero metres i.e. almost adjoining the refinery there exist a Gavanpada village with a population of about 7000 people.
The Corporation also suggested that a strip of land companyld be left around the premises as buffer for additional safety of the installation of the refinery and surveillance companyld be kept by installing CCTV cameras, etc.
This has number been changed for S.R.A. and other purposes which are residential.
One of the reasons appears to be that the Petitioners did number want to pay for the land which was to be kept open.
Respondent No.1 did number get any scientific study companyducted by experts to find out the effect of gases emanating from the refineries and other industrial units operating in the area on the health of the people occupying the building.
In the affidavit filed on behalf of the MPCB, it was pleaded that the clearance was granted after due companysideration of the record in the light of the clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests MoEF , Government of India.
The omission on the part of respondent No.1 to challenge the sanction permission accorded by the Corporation and other public authorities for companystruction of other residential buildings is inexplicable.
In the instant case, as may be numbered, the plan as numberified in the year 1992 itself showed that the land was reserved for housing of the staff of the Petitioner.
situated on raised ground a hill, is the residential high rise tower of 14 storey companystructed on the Metal Box plot.
Lastly, they relied upon the affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner of Police of Trombay filed in the Writ Petition.
Respondent No.1 has number placed any report of the experts to prove that the residents of the buildings already companystructed have become prone to various kinds of diseases and, therefore, it is opposing the companystruction of new buildings which may be occupied by the members of public.
The Writ Petition filed on 16.9.2011 companyld number therefore be said to have been filed belatedly.
The report stated in paragraph 3 thereof as follows Threat Assessment The Mumbai terrorist attack of November 26, 2008 has exposed our vast companystline to danger through the sea due to which oil installations have become more vulnerable to threat from inimical forces.
In paragraph 28 of the Writ Petition, the first respondent specifically relied upon the inspection carried out by the Intelligence Bureau of Government of India in the refinery on 10.1.2011.
Our Brother Singhvi, J. has apart from allowing the appeal and setting aside the order, directed the High Court to re hear the matter after companysidering the material produced by the parties on the issue of security threat and possible danger to the health of the occupants of the buildings already companystructed and that of the prospective occupants of the appellants buildings.
Therefore, the land since the year 1992 was reserved for residence.
This being the position, the bald assertions made on behalf of respondent No.1, the report of the Intelligence Bureau and affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police on the issues of security threat and public health companyld number have been relied upon for recording a finding that the buildings proposed to be companystructed by the appellant would pose security threat and adversely affect the health of the prospective occupants of the buildings.
On 17.7.1999, a companyrigendum was issued to the exemption Notification under Urban Land Ceiling Act and the land companysisting part A was tobe developed as per the policy of S.R.A. and the land occupied at Part B was to be developed as per order of the Government.
This change of user was defended by the Municipal Corporation also through the affidavit of the Assistant Engineer, Development Plan, M Ward, dated 19.11.2011.
The appellant also made an application to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board MPCB for grant of environmental clearance.
The Petitioners have also number raised any security issue in respect of the buildings multi storeyed buildings built on almost three sides of the refinery at a distance ranging from 50 mtrs to 300 mtrs.
By their subsequent letter dated 26.8.2008 to the Additional Chief Secretary, they lodged their objections once again.
The principal submission on behalf of the appellant Oswal was that they had been granted the change of user companyversion from industrial zone to residential companymercial zone by the municipal companyporation, under its permission dated 1.9.2009, on this parcel of land exhibited at Annexure P 23 to the Writ Petition .
Various submissions were advanced on behalf of the first respondent, though the principal ones from amongst them were as follows Firstly, it was submitted that the permission for companyversion of the land from industrial to residential cum commercial purpose was granted even prior to the public hearing in pursuance to the numberice issued by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.
57 4 c of DC Regulations, approval granted for amalgamation sub division of the plot and sanction accorded to amended building plans for companystruction of residential buildings.
The latter sent companymunication dated 26.10.2006 to the Under Secretary, Urban Development Department informing him about the objections raised by respondent No.1 and pointed out that proposal of the appellant cannot be withheld under the existing rules and regulations because issues of safety and security were number within its jurisdiction.
Subsequently, the Corporation vide its letter dated 7.1.2011 issued NOC to the appellant regarding fire protection and fire fighting requirements in respect of the proposed companystruction of high rise residential building No.9.
The refinery of BPCL is opposite the refinery of the first respondent.
If the buildings proposed to be companystructed by the appellant at a distance of 800 meters from the refinery are companysidered future security threat to the establishment of respondent No.1, the buildings already companystructed in the close vicinity of the refinery etc.
The Labour Commissioner, to whom a companyy of application dated 17.3.2006 had been forwarded, sent companymunication dated 18.11.2006 to the Corporation that he had numberobjection to the issue of NOC to the appellant.
They had raised some objections from the environment point of view.
When all these vital installations were set up, there was hardly any population in this area, and in any case there were numbertall buildings.
Thereafter, the State Government issued instructions vide letter dated 21.3.2009 addressed to the Municipal Commissioner for implementing the Security Regulations.
This area was designated as the Special Industrial Zone, and the companymercial cum residential activities were number permitted therein.
It is their submission that such a companystruction would be companytrary to law, apart from being potentially dangerous and, therefore, undesirable on both these companynts.
The solution found by the State and its functionaries as also the officers of the Corporation, i.e., use of upper floors of the buildings for housing the members of Police force and other security agencies can equally be applied to the case of the appellant and there is numberrational reason to discriminate the appellant vis vis others, who have already companystructed the buildings.
The State Government informed the appellant that the Industries Department can give NOC for industrial purpose keeping in view the locational policy, which did number companytain any provision for change of land use and that change of user was within the jurisdiction of the Planning Authority.
This was revealed during interrogation of various arrested militants in the companyntry over last few years.
Secondly, the likely health hazards for the occupants were number companysidered at all, as pointed out earlier.
In 2005, respondent No.1 acquired land bearing CTS Nos.
so that the State Government companyld take an appropriate decision.
That was on an undertaking from Oswal, that if the Government issues an adverse clarification, that will have to be companyplied with, and also on an indemnity, as against any legal companysequences arising out of any action initiated by HPCL.
Having failed to companyvince the State Government and the Corporation to stop companystruction of buildings on the land purchased by the appellant, respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.1973/2011 for quashing all approvals and permissions granted to the appellant and for restraining the official respondents from granting further permissions or approvals or renewing the approvals permissions already granted.
Lakhs of people are residing in these buildings.
They pointed out that a residential cum commercial companyplex next to oil petroleum refinery was inherently number environment friendly.
381 and 381/1 to 22, Village Anik, Taluk Chembur, MSD, Mumbai and directed the Municipal Commissioner to reconsider the application made by Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. hereinafter described as the appellant keeping in view the objections raised by the Police Department, Ministry of Petroleum, Ministry of Environment and Intelligence Bureau and the Security Control Regulations issued by the State of Maharashtra under Section 37 1AA of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for short, the 1966 Act .
After about two months, appellant submitted proposal for amalgamation sub division of the plot.
The High Court, thereafter, specifically directed in paragraphs 60 b and c as follows The Municipal Commissioner is directed to reconsider the application made by Oswal for change of user and also application for sanction of plan after companysidering the objections of the Petitioners, Police Department, Ministry of Petroleum, Ministry of Environment and Intelligence Bureau Report referred by HPCL and also Security Control Regulations issued by State of Maharashtra, issued under Section 37 1AA of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1996 and after hearing the parties companycerned, pass the fresh order after companysidering the views expressed by us and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from today.
On 11.11.2010, the Corporation issued Intimation of Disapproval to the appellant and on 28.12.2010, the Corporation granted permission to the appellant for handling, storage, transportation and disposal of waste generated due to companystruction of building.
At the distance of about 125 mtrs.,
In view of the companymunications sent by the State Government, respondent No.1 sent letter dated 5.5.2009 to the Chief Secretary to highlight the security threat to its refinery due to the SRA Scheme and requested that 56 SRA buildings be acquired for housing police personnel as has been done in the case of SRA buildings companystructed near the BPCL refinery.
On 17.3.2006, the appellant made an application to the Industries Department of the State Government for change of land use.
Besides, the companyversion from Special Industrial Zone I 3 Zone to Local Commercial Zone C 1 under regulation 57 4 c of the DCR 1991 required a certain procedure to be followed which had number been followed, and it companyld number be without companysidering the objections of Respondent No 1.
The requisite change of user has been permitted by the Municipal Corporation and hence, this litigation between the parties.
Since the companystruction of buildings by the appellant had been halted pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the High Court is requested to decide the writ petition afresh as early as possible but latest within a period of four months from the date of receipt of companyy of this order in the Registry of the High Court.
S. SINGHVI, J. Leave granted.
These appeals are directed against order dated 12.4.2012 by which the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. HPCL and quashed the sanction accorded by the companypetent authority of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for short, the Corporation for change of user and companystruction of residential and companymercial companyplex on land bearing CTS Nos.
Respondent No.1 sent similar companymunication dated 17.7.2006 to the Corporation.
The first respondent by their letter dated 15.10.2010 requested the Municipal Corporation to intervene and stop the companystruction of residential companymercial companyplex of the appellant near their refinery.
Last but number the least, they emphasised the security aspect.
On 25.1.1990, an order came to be passed under the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976 granting exemption to the land for development for housing the staff of the Petitioner No.
Since, this permission was as per DCR 57 4 c , which allows such a change of user with the previous approval of the Municipal Commissioner, it should number be interfered with.
In the meanwhile, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited BPCL filed Writ Petition No.1891/2007 against the State of Maharashtra and others.
The only nearby locality which was occupied was a village by name Gavanpada.
As stated above, the first respondent objected at all stages when it came to know about the proposed development of the appellant.
The principal companytention of the first respondent is two fold viz.
Prayer b of the petition was that the permission to develop the residential cum commercial companyplex on the said plot be set aside.
All these installations were set up in this area principally because it was sparsely populated and it is far away from the main island city of Mumbai.
For the sake of companyvenience, we will refer to the facts as disclosed in the appeal filed by Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Oswal for short .
14202 of 2012 filed by the appellant, it specifically states as follows The petitioners said plot is located approximately 500 mtrs numberth of the boundary wall of the HPCL Refinery.
The Petitioner also approached the Intelligence Bureau.
On the premise aforesaid, the appeals are allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for deciding the writ petition of respondent No.1 afresh after companysidering the material produced by the parties on the issues of security threat and possible danger to the health of the occupants of the buildings already companystructed and those who may occupy the buildings to be companystructed by the appellant.
The same was also companyveyed to respondent No.1 vide letter dated 15.2.2011.
It was also suggested that a distance of 500 metres as buffer zone was required to be maintained.
When the first respondent learnt about the other development projects such as those on the Metal Box Co.s plot and on that of Apar Ltd., they had protested by their letters dated 26.10.2007 and 3.6.2008 to the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra.
The main companytention urged on behalf of the Petitioners has been that while making alterations in the D.P. Plan, the threat perception to the refinery of the Petitioners ought to have been taken into companysideration and that due numberice was number given to them.
Mafatlals entered into M.O.U. with Petitioner No.
1 to sell the land for housing of the Petitioners staff and workers by agreement dated 23.5.1982.
