1 srk pil-6-08.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 6 OF 2008 Girni Kamgar Karmchari Niwara & Kalyankari Sangh, through its member Shri Dilip Ramchandra Gupte. ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents Mr. I.A. Saiyed for the petitioner. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Geeta Joglekar for MCGM. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader for State-respondent No.1. Mr. Shyam Mehta i/by M/s. Federal & Rashmikant for respondent No.2. Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Dr. Birendra Saraf, Mr. Kamlesh Sampat, Mr. Ranjit Shetty, Mr. Lulkyaraj Indorkar and Mr. Amit Iyer i/by M/s. Hariani & Co. for respondent No.4. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. Wednesday, March 09, 2011 P .C. The petitioner claims to be a union of textiles workers. In this petition purporting to be Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has contended that the land earmarked by respondent No.2 viz. Hindustan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. for Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai under Regulation 58 of the Development Control Regulations (hereinafter referred to as DCR) is less than that required to be handed over to MHADA and the Municipal Corporation as per DCR 58. 2. Regulation 58 of DCR provides for development or redevelopment of lands of cotton textile mills and the company is permitted to prepare a layout plan for development or redevelopment of the entire open land built-up area of the premises of a sick and/or closed cotton textile mill with the previous 2 srk pil-6-08.sxw approval of the Commissioner. The Commissioner is empowered to lay down the terms and conditions for granting such approval. One of the conditions is that the company is required to make available the land to MHADA and to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for providing the housing accommodation to the workers of the company. As per the terms and conditions stipulated in the approval granted by the Commissioner, respondent No.2 company was required to make available to MHADA and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai lands admeasuring 542.13 sq.mts. and 662.61 sq. mts. respectively. That determination came to be considered by the Apex Court in Bombay Dying and Manufacturing Company Limited v. Bombay Environmental Action Group, (2006)3 SCC page 434. 3. The controversy raised before the Apex Court came to be dealt with in paras 171 to 173 of the Reported Judgement. There is no dispute about the fact that Mill No.4 referred to in paras 171 and 172 of the Apex Court judgment is respondent No.2 herein i.e. Hindustan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. The reported judgment (pages 502 and 503) gives the following calculations for Mill No.4 i.e. respondent No.2 herein: "Mill No.4 Existing development Plot area 58,458.36 sq.m (excluding set back area) Existing plinth area 39,304.83 Ratio of ground cover 67.20% Existing RG area almost nil Proposed development Plot area 58,458.36 sq.m (excluding set back area) Proportionate plinth area 10,789.40 sq.m Ratio of ground cover 18.45% Layout RG DCR 21 17,423.51 3 srk pil-6-08.sxw MCGM 662.61 sq.m RG + MCGM 18,086.12 sq.m Computation of open land 1. Plot area 58,458.36 sq.m (excluding set back area) 2. Land component of existing BU area under DCR 58(6) i.e. existing BU area permissible FSI. 75,079.11 sq.m 1.33 3. Balance open land to be shared under DCR 58(1)(b) 2007.90 sq.m (i) Share of MCGM (33%) 662.61 sq.m (ii) Share of MHADA (27%) 542.13 sq.m (iii) Share of owner (40%) 803.16 sq.m ----------------------------------------------------------------- Owner's holding [2+3(iii) 57253.62 sq.m" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Again the Apex Court specifically gave the following finding in para 172: "172. For computing the extent of the land required to be shared, the plinth area will have no relevance. So far as Mill No.4 is concerned, having regard to the existing built-up area, the share of MCGM and MHADA would be on a low side." The Apex Court also referred to the area required to be handed over to the Municipal Corporation and MHADA in para 295 of the Judgment where respondent No.2 figures at serial No.11 of the table as under: "295. However, the area available for MCGM and MHADA for the proposals approved under modified DCR 58 of 2001 for total/partial redevelopment are as under: 4 srk pil-6-08.sxw --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl.No. Name of the mill Proposed as per the provisions of modified DCR 58(i)(b) MCGM in sq.m. MHADA in sq.m. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. Hindustan Spinning and 662.61 542.12" Weaving Mill Units 1 and 2. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that there is no dispute raised by the Municipal Corporation or MHADA, that respondent No.2 handed over the land admeasuring 542.13 sq.mt. of land to MHADA on 5th December, 2007 and handed over the land admeasuring 662.61 sq.mts. to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai on 14th December, 2007. 5. Regulation 59(8) provides for constitution of Monitoring Committee in order to oversee the due implementation of the scheme for the revival/rehabilitation of a potentially sick and/or closed textile mill, or schemes approved by the Government for the modernisation or shifting of cotton textile mills and the permissions for development or redevelopment of lands of cotton textile mills granted by the Commissioner under the regulation. The Monitoring Committee under the Chairmanship of a retired High Court Judge has one representative each of the cotton textile mill owners and the recognised trade union of cotton textile mill workers, the Commissioner and the Government as members. Regulation 58(9)(e) further provides that every direction or decision of the Monitoring Committee shall be final and conclusive and binding on all concerned. 6. In the course of implementation of the redevelopment scheme of respondent No.2, the petitioner sought to challenge the calculation of land to be surrendered by respondent No.2 to MHADA and to the Municipal Corporation. 5 srk pil-6-08.sxw The Monitoring Committee held at its meeting held on 8th August, 2007 that the areas of land to be surrendered to MHADA and to the Corporation having been approved in the Supreme Court judgment cannot be changed subsequently. This decision has not been challenged either in this Writ Petition or otherwise. 7. In the present petition, the petitioner-Union of the workers has contended that the computation of open land required to be surrendered to MHADA and to the Municipal Corporation for providing housing accommodation to the workers of respondent No.2 Mill is erroneous. According to the petitioner, about 4000 sq.mts. of land should have been surrendered by respondent No.2 to MHADA and another 4000 sq.mts. ought to have been surrendered to the Municipal Corporation. 8. In our view, when the exact area of land to be surrendered by respondent No.2 to MHADA and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai was worked out by the Apex Court, it is not open to this Court to entertain the petitioner's challenge to such computation of open land to be made available by respondent No.2 to MHADA and to the Municipal Corporation. 9. On this ground alone, we hold that this petition is not maintainable. Therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.