The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the redevelopment of a building within the Gamdevi Heritage Precinct, clearing the way for a 15-storey structure that had already been constructed. The petition, filed by the Gamdevi Residents’ Association, questioned the legality of construction permissions granted under Regulation 67(2)(iii)(b) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 (DCR 1991).
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the special permission granted for redevelopment was valid, lawful, and in compliance with the applicable regulatory framework. The Court found no grounds to interfere in its writ jurisdiction, particularly in a case marred by significant delay and laches.
The petitioners contended that redevelopment in a Heritage Precinct could only proceed with prior permission of the Municipal Commissioner, acting on the advice of the Heritage Conservation Committee (HCC). They argued that in the absence of HCC’s approval, Regulation 67(2)(iii)(b) should either be read down or struck down. Relying on M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, (1999) 6 SCC 464, they urged that even completed constructions found to be illegal must be demolished.
The respondents, including the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), argued that the petition suffered from gross delay, having been filed after the construction had already reached 15 floors. They also emphasized that Regulation 67(2)(iii)(b) amended in 1999 does not require consultation with the HCC for redevelopment of cessed buildings in Grade III precincts. They relied on Bombay Environmental Action Group v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (6) Bom.C.R. 574 to assert that rules on delay apply equally to PILs, and on Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, (2003) 7 SCC 546 to argue that the validity of a regulation cannot be challenged for the first time in a PIL.
The Court noted that the Municipal Commissioner had granted special permission after considering all relevant materials, including the building’s location within the Gamdevi Precinct and its proposed height of 45.3 metres. The Bench found that the decision-making process was reasoned and demonstrated proper application of mind, with no illegality or procedural lapse.
In its concluding observations, the Court held that, after considering the overall circumstances of the case, no relief could be granted to the petitioners. Consequently, the Public Interest Litigation was dismissed and the Rule discharged.
Appearances:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Sakshi Kashyap, Mr. Meiron Damania & Ms. Hilla Boatwalla i/by Nanu Hormasjee & Co.
For MCGM (Respondents 1 & 10): Ms. Oorja Dhond with Ms. Chaitalee Deochake i/by Komal R. Punjabi
For the State (Respondents 5 & 6): Smt. Usha Rahi, AGP
For Respondents 7A & 17: Mr. Ankit Lohia with Mr. Chirag Sarawagi & Mr. Yash Sinha i/by Mr. Tushar Goradia
For Respondent 8A: Mr. Pratik Shah