1 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6785 OF 2008 Shri Chandrakant Gangaram Thakkar .. Petitioner Versus Municipal Corp;oration of City of Thane and others .. Respondents Shri A. A. Kumbhakoni i/b Shri R. S. Datar, for the petitioner Shri V. S. Masurkar, GP for Respondent No. 2 CORAM: J. N. PATEL, & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 18th June, 2009 ORAL ORDER ( Per Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, J. ) 1. Heard. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. 3. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the oder dated 20th August, 2007, passed by the Respondent no.2-State, thereby dismissing the Appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the building which is the subject matter of this petition and the said building is wholly occupied by the tenants. As the said building is in dilapidated condition, the petitioner has applied for redevelopment of the said building by claiming FSI 2.00, as permissible under Government 2 Notification dated 4th October, 1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had approached the Respondent No.1- Thane Municipal Corporation by letter dated 7.11.2006 and submitted the proposal for redevelopment of the said building. However, Repsondent no.1, by its leter dated 17.1.2006, rejected the said proposal. Therefore, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 47 of the MRTP Act to the Respondent no.2 i.e. Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai., which came to be dismissed. 5. The lerned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reasons for dismissal of the Appeal given by the Hon ble Chief Minister are ’ erroneous and the Minister has wrongly placed reliance on the decision of this Court dated 31st March, 2004 in PIL No. 90 of 2002 which was pertaining to the permissible FSI for Redevelopment of buildings of the Cooperative Housing Societies. The State Government has preferred an Appeal against the said order of this Court before the Hon ble Supreme ’ Court which, we are informed that is pending. However, the Hon ble ’ Supreme Court, on 20.9.2004 passed an order in SLP (Civil) No. 8833 of 2004 permitting redevelopment/reconstruction by cooperative societies of their building by using FSI 2.00, subject to the undertaking. The learned counsel has further contended that the petitioner s building is not a Cooperative ’ Society and was not party to the petition and, therefore, did not give undertaking as it was squarely covered under the Notification dated 4th October, 1999 issued by Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The learned counsel has submitted that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable on facts and is covered under Clause 1 (a)[+] (ii)(a) of the Notification dated 4th October, 2009, which reads as under: Redevelopment outside congested area shall be allowed with “ an FSI equivalent to that already utilised plus 50% of the permissible FIS or 2.00 whichever is more provided the total FSI of the new structure shall not exceed 3.00” 3 6. The Respondent-State has filed affidavit in reply of the Town Planner from the Office of the Deputy Director, Town Planning, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai, opposing the petition. 7. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the facts, it appears that respondent No.2- State has misconstrued the Notification dated 4th October, 2009 and also the order of the Hon ble ’ Supreme Court. We are, therefore, quash and set aisde the order dated 20th August, 2007 and remit the matter to the Respondent No.2 -State for considering it afresh in the light of the Notification dated 4th October, 1999. 8. It is open for the petitioner to raise all isuse and contentions available to him as per law, before the State Government 9. The Respondent No.2- State to take decision in the matter in accordance with law, within 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order. 10. The petition is disposed of and the Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid term. 11. The petitioner to communicate this order to the respondents. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (J. N. PATEL, J.)