1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1486 OF 2009 Videocon Tower A Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Niranjan Lapasia i/by M/s. Niranjan & Co. for the Petitioners Ms. G.S. Joglekar for Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 Mr. H.S.S. Murthy i/by Mr. V.K. Narkar for Respondent No. 3 Mr. Dinyar Madon, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Neeta Rajda i/by M/s. DSR Associates for Respondent No. 5 Mr. B.M. Jethani for Respondent No. 6 Ms. Geeta Shastri, Assistant Government Pleader, with Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader, for Respondent No. 7. CORAM: J.N. PATEL AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE: MARCH 17, 2010 P.C.:- We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners, who claim to be representing the Videocon Tower A Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., have filed this 2 petition after their failure to get any interim relief from the City Civil Court as well as the Consumer Forum, wherein they are agitating identical issues. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are two issues on which the petitioners have invoked the extra- ordinary jurisdiction of this Court: (a) It pertains to the respondent- builder having failed to obtain environmental clearance from the Environmental Department of the Government of Maharashtra and (b) the requirement of NoC from the Fire Department. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Municipal Corporation submits that so far as NoC from the Fire Department is concerned, it was only pertaining to a particular pipeline, which has now been restored, and the Fire Department would undertake the necessary exercise for giving NoC, and if there is compliance of all the requirements, it would issue necessary certificate. 3 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3- developer submits that the developer is developing two towers known as Towers No. 5 and 6 within the layout consisting of CTS Nos. 724, 783, 764 and 784 of Village Poisar, Kandivali (East). The petitioner-Society is of Building No.A, consisting of stilt plus 23 upper floors, and the other set of the petitioners of Building No.B have also agitated the matter by raising similar issues and have settled their disputes. It is submitted that there are only handful of persons, who are litigating against respondents No.2 and 3, who have got everything approved for construction of Building Nos. 5 and 6 after getting required clearances from all concerned, and, therefore, this Court should not entertain this petition, which is false and frivolous. It is submitted that the petition has been filed only after the petitioners failed to get any relief from the City Civil Court as well as the Consumer Forum. 6. We have already expressed that we are not inclined to entertain this petition, and if at all the petitioners are of the view that the environmental clearances are necessary in case of construction of Building Nos. 5 and 6 on the aforesaid layout, then nothing prevents 4 them from approaching the Secretary, Environmental Department, State of Maharashtra, by making a representation. 7. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that they have approached the concerned authority, but it has failed to take cognizance of their complaint. On the other hand, the Law Officer has replied to them, justifying that no environmental clearance is required, as the construction is restricted to less than 20,000 square metres. Further, it has been emphasized by the petitioners that prior approval of the Environmental Department is necessary before a project of such a magnitude undertaken by respondent No.3 commences. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they will make a representation to the Environmental Department of the State of Maharashtra within a period of one week. 9. We make it clear that if the petitioners make any such representation, then respondents No.6 and 7 would take a decision in the matter, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks 5 thereafter, after giving notice to all concerned, subject to the co-operation of the parties. 10. With the aforesaid observation, we dismiss the petition. J.N. PATEL, J. A.P. BHANGALE, J.