ssp 1 WP 453 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.453 OF 2010 Jeevan Estate Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. .....Petitioners V/s. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Aspi Chinai, Senior Advocate i/by Ms.N.V.Sanglikar, for the petitioners. Mr.K.K.Singhavi, Senior Advocate with Ms.Shobha Ajeet Kumar, for the respondent – Corporation. Mr.Kevic Settalwad with Ms.Dipti Mistry i/by Mr.Vaibhav Mehta, for respondent No.6. Mr.I.M.Chagala, Senior Advocate with Mr.F.D’Vitre, Senior Advocate and Mr.P.K.Samdhani, Senior Advocate i/by M/s.Wadia Ghandy & Co., for respondent No.7. Mr.S.U.Deshmukh, for respondent No.8. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 1st DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner’s Society has prayed for appropriate writ directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the sanction/clearance given to the developer for the development of Plot No.6 Janki Kutir CTS No.567/51, Village Juhu, Mumbai – 400 056. The petitioners have challenged the said action on various grounds mentioned in the writ petition. 2. It is not necessary for us to go into the details about the ssp 2 WP 453 of 2010 controversy arising in the above petition, as it is pointed out that the environment clearance given by the concerned Department, is under re- examination of respondent Nos.6 and 8. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.8, pointing out that two documents in connection with City Survey Extracts, are being examined by their Department in order to find out whether two documents/extracts were forged documents or genuine documents. It is also pointed out that initially the files were missing from the Office of the Corporation, but now they are traced. It is pointed out that the environment clearance given to the concerned developer, is suspended and is kept under abeyance till appropriate inquiry in this behalf is completed. 3. Since at present, the environment clearance is kept under abeyance by the Department of Environment and since the issue about granting environment clearance is under consideration of respondent Nos. 6 and 8, it is not necessary for us to keep the above petition pending, as the Departments are examining the matter afresh in its entirety and the concerned respondents may take appropriate decision in this behalf and if necessary, may hear the concerned parties including respondent No.7 i.e. the owner of the land and the petitioners before taking the decision. 4. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent No.7 contended that since the relevant documents have been placed on record ssp 3 WP 453 of 2010 and the owner of the property is unable to reconstruct the property because the environment clearance is kept under abeyance, the respondent Nos.6 and 8 may be directed to take appropriate decision expeditiously. We appreciate the said submission, as the issue is required to be sorted out at the earliest. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct respondent Nos.6 and 8 to complete the inquiry which they have undertaken as pointed out in their affidavit-in-reply and inquiry may be completed within a period of three months from today. Needless to say that at the time of taking final decision, respondent Nos.6 and 8 may also consider as to whether in the facts and circumstances and in accordance with law, environment clearance was rightly granted or whether such clearance is not required to be granted. These questions are kept open for the consideration of the said authorities. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on any of the issue and the rights & contentions of both the sides are kept open. It is for the environmental authorities to consider aforesaid aspects objectively and in accordance with law. In case, the decision of the authorities go against the petitioners or respondent No. 7, it will be open to them to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law challenging the said decision. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.7 states that the petitioners have no locus to file the above petition and that they ssp 4 WP 453 of 2010 have no right to object the construction which is to be carried out by respondent No.7. The above questions are kept open for consideration in case of future litigation in this behalf. 6. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )