-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 614 OF 2008 Shreejidham Co-operative Housing Society ... Petitioner versus Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and others ... Respondents Mr. Y.P. Singh, instructed by Mr. Kiran Bhalerao, for the petitioner. Ms. Archana Joshi for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Raju Subramanian, with Mr. Hemang S. Raythattha, instructed by M/s. RMG Law Associates, for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. P.G. Lad for the intervenors. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2008. P.C. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the building plan approved by the Municipal Corporation in connection with the construction in question is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no access to the petitioner's building where the members of the petitioner-society are residing. As per the averments made in the petition, the width of access to petitioner-society is only 9 metres and that subsequently the action of accepting revised plan submitted by other side is illegal and contrary to the -2- provisions contained in D.C. Regulation 22. It is, therefore, prayed that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to demolish the building in question as the same is in violation of the Rules and Regulations and that the first respondent be directed to restore the means of access to the building in which the members of the petitioner are staying. The main grievance of the petitioner is regarding providing adequate means of access to the petitioner society so that the members occupying the premises can have the benefit of such available access as per the Rules. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is very difficult for fire brigade to enter the premises in which the members of the petitioner are staying and that it may create difficulty in case of emergency. The petition is resisted by the respondents and on behalf of the Corporation, an affidavit in reply has been filed denying the averments made in the petition. In paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said affidavit, the following averments have been made. “3. I say that full commencement certificate granted and lay out is approved for entire plot in Phase I and Phase II Development. Phase I consist of 4 buildings i.e. A, B, C and D and Phase II is for future development. Last plan for Building D has been approved for stilt plus twelve upper floors (38.00 mtrs. Height). The access to Phase I plot is through 12.2 mt. Wide existing road on northwise and Phase II plot is accessible by means of 9 mts. Wide access road directly connected to 40' wide D.P.Road on west side. 20% -3- recreation ground is proposed on Phase I and Phase II separately as per development control regulations, 1991. Further, concession in relaxation for open space u/s 64 B of D.C.R. 1991 has been granted by Municipal Commissioner for Bldg. D stilt plus 23 floors. However, at present last plan of Bldg. D are approved only for stilt plus 12 floors with no deficiency in open space. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon c.c. and approved plan as and when necessary. 4. I say that Petitioner herein has made several allegations regarding approval of plans and the aid allegations are incorrect and the plans have been approved in accordance with law. I say that “means of access” in original lay out was proposed only as an access to Phase II development which is located at a height of 30' to 40' from ground level (i.e. Phase I development) “means of access” to Petitioner's building No.C was through existing 12.20 mtrs. Wide road only as per original lay out and also as per the new lay out. I, therefore, say that there is no violation of D.C.R. 21 as regards access to petitioner's plan. 5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, there is ample space available by means of access to Petitioner's building No. C. The copy of the report submitted by the Mumbai Fire Brigade is at page No. 141 of the petition. According to the learned counsel for the Corporation, the building in question has already completed 12 floors. 31 flats have already been sold by way of registered documents. The persons who have purchased the flats have not been joined as parties to this petition. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the building is illegal it can be demolished at any point of time. -4- 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. We have gone through the documents. In our view, in view of the averments contained in the affidavit in reply filed by the Corporation, particularly averments as quoted above, it cannot be said that there is no means of access available to the petitioner society. Even Fire Brigade authorities have also given certificate in this aspect. It is also required to be noted that 12 floors have already been completed and the petitioner has not joined the parties who are likely to be affected if any order is passed against them in this petition. The petitioner has also not approached the Court within reasonable time and allowed the entire construction work practically to be over. Considering the said aspect, in our view, since the construction has been made on the basis of the plans approved by the Corporation, no relief can be granted to the petitioner asking the Corporation to demolish the building in question. Petition being devoid of any merit is rejected at the admission stage. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. A.A. SAYED, J.