1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8766 OF 2009 Mohan H.Menghrajani & Ors. .. Petitioners. Vs. Addl.Chief Secretary & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.J.S.Chandnani for the petitioners. Mr.V.D.Patil for respondent no.3. Mr.A.I.Patel A.G.P. for respondent nos.1, 2 and 4. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE, J. DATED : 17TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. The petitioners have impugned the order dated 31.7.2008, passed by the Chief Secretary holding that the petitioners’ structure exceeds the FSI 4.00, which is the permissible limit. Initially, the order dated 16.7.2007 was passed by the designated authority without hearing the petitioners or giving them an opportunity to demonstrate as to how their construction is within the permissible limit. Neither the order dated 16.7.2007 nor the order passed by the appellate authority dated 2 31.7.2008 show as to how the structure exceeds the permissible limit. In view thereof Mr.Chandnani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was difficult for the petitioners to meet the case of the respondents. 4. After having perused the impugned orders and having heard learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that unless the authorities concerned indicate to the owner of the offending structure as to how the FSI is in excess of the permissible limits, it would be difficult for such a person to demonstrate as to how the calculations made by the concerned authority are wrong and how their structure is within the permissible limits. In my opinion, it would be appropriate for both the designated authorities as well as appellate authority to indicate cogent reasons for which they find that the offending structure exceeds the permissible FSI limit. In the circumstances I dispose of this writ petition by the following order: The petitioners to submit a fresh proposal to the Designated Authority within a period of four weeks from today. The Designated Authority shall consider the representation and proposal submitted by the petitioners alongwith the revised plan, if any. The Designated Authority will consider the same, uninfluenced by the reasons mentioned in the impugned orders. The expert committee assisting the Designated Authority will physically verify the site and take measurements of the 3 offending structure in the presence of the representative of the petitioners in order to ascertain whether the FSI was within the permissible limit. Till such exercise is carried out and fresh orders are passed by the Designated Authority, the offending structure shall not be demolished. It is needless to state that if the petitioners fail to submit fresh proposal within the time stipulated it would be open to the respondents to execute the impugned orders. The Designated Authority shall complete the exercise as aforementioned within a period of ten weeks from the date of submissions of the fresh proposal by the petitioners. Rule is, accordingly, disposed of with no orders as to costs. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)