-: 1 :- wp-1409/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1409 OF 2011 Ramchand P. Khatri & Ors. ..Petitioners. Versus Addl. Chief Secretary & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. J. S. Chadnani for the petitioners. Mr. A. I. Patel for R-1, 2 & 4. Mr. S. M. Kambale for R-3. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : April 7, 2011. P. C. : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the respondents waive service. By consent of the learned counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in order to challenge the order dated 16th July 2007 passed by the Designated Authority, which is confirmed by the appellate authority by its order dated 7th November 2008 refusing regularisation of structure. 3. The structure is alleged to have been constructed in the year 1993-94 in Barrack No.969, Room No.18 and 19, Station Road, Ulhasnagar-421 003. In 2006, an Ordinance was promulgated for regularisation of unauthorised developments in the city of srp -: 2 :- wp-1409/11 Ulhasnangar, which was followed by a legislative enactment. The provisions of the Act, inter-alia, sections 3 & 4, provide for the nature of structure which can be regularised and those which cannot be tolerated. The petitioners in the present case received notices on 7th April 2006 in pursuance of which the application was made for regularisation. The designated authority rejected the proposal on 16/7/2007 and that order is confirmed by the Additional Chief Secretary in an appeal by his order dated 7/11/2008. 4. A perusal of the order of the designated authority reveals that the regularisation is refused only on the ground that FSI consumed is more than 4. As stated above, the appellate authority has not interfered with this order of the designated authority. 5. Mr. Chandnani, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Report of Expert Committee was not made available to the petitioners. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. The finding given by the designated authority that the petitioner has consumed more than 4 FSI appears to have been given on the basis of said Expert Committee Report. Since the petitioners were not given a copy of the said Report, the petitioners were deprived of an opportunity to show that in fact -: 3 :- wp-1409/11 the consumed FSI is less than 4. Had the petitioners been given a copy of the Expert Committee Report, the petitioners would have submitted material evidence to show that the observations in the Report are not factually correct. Thus, the principles of natural justice and fair play are not followed. 5. In that view of the matter, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone and matter is required to be remanded back. The petition is therefore disposed of by passing following order. -: O R D E R :- (i) The impugned orders passed by respondent nos. 1 & 2 are hereby quashed and set aside and matter is remanded back to respondent no.2 – Designated Authority to decide the petitioners’ proposal for regularisation of unauthorised development on its own merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (ii) It would be open to the petitioners, if they so desire, to submit a fresh proposal within the period of 4 weeks from today. (iii) The Designated authority shall consider the petitioners’ fresh proposal and if no fresh proposal is submitted, then the existing proposal in accordance with law and pass -: 4 :- wp-1409/11 fresh orders thereon. The Designated Authority shall endevour to decide the matter expeditiously. (iv) Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. (RANJIT MORE, J.)