IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION P.I.L. P.I.L. P.I.L. NO.1 OF 2008 NO.1 OF 2008 NO.1 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH P.I.L. P.I.L. P.I.L. NO.17 OF 2008 NO.17 OF 2008 NO.17 OF 2008 Cyril Thomas Mecwan & Ors. ..Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents ....... Mr. Uday Bobde i/b Sayaji D. Nangre for the Petitioners Mr. D.A. Nalawade, GP for Respondent Nos.1,4 and 5 Ms. P.A. Purandare for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Mr. S.U. Kamdar i/by Mr. M.P. Vora for Respondent No.6 ....... CORAM CORAM CORAM : SHRI J.N.PATEL & : SHRI J.N.PATEL & : SHRI J.N.PATEL & SHRI SHRI SHRI K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE :10TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 :10TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 :10TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C.: . Heard. 2. The Petitioners have approached this Court in public interest objecting to the construction undertaken by Respondent No.6 Society converting the Housing Society into a commercial complex. It is the case of the Petitioners that they are residing in the vicinity of F.P. No.199, TPS III, since more than 20 years. and that initially Respondent No.6 purchased the property : 2 : and constructed residential building and shopping mall on the ground floor. Subsequently, they have carried out construction of a shopping mall on Final Plot No.199, TPS III, bearing CTS No.F/1214 of Village Bandra (W). The Petitioners found that the alleged construction of shopping mall has resulted in causing obstruction to the free flow of traffic as the said Plot No.199 is located at junction of four major roads i.e. linking Road, S.V. Road, Turner Road, S.V. Road (North) and Station Road. and the entrance for the shopping mall is on the V.P. Road i.e. Linking Road. Therefore, it is submitted that as the shopping mall is constructed in violation of DP Plan as well as DCR 52(3), Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 ought not to have given the permission for construction of the shopping mall in the entire building on the said Plot. Therefore, the said permission granted to the Housing Society of Respondent No.6 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. In reply, the Respondent Society has justified the construction in question and has stated that they have complied with all the requirements and incurred huge expenses and that this sanction for construction was on the basis of the area of the plot, which has : 3 : development potentiality of TDR of 620 Sq.Meter for which the society has invested huge sums of money and that as the Society has obtained all the required permissions and even taken care of the parking facilities of the visitors to the shopping mall as per the DCR requirements. There is no public interest involved in the matter as per the grievance of the Petitioners that the said shopping mall has resulted in causing congestion of traffic. 4. This Court on the last date insisted upon Respondent Corporation to file their affidavit in reply. Accordingly, the affidavit in reply has been filed by Mr. Ghate, who is working as Executive Engineer, Building and Proposal Department, WSH Ward, Bandra (W). In the affidavit in reply, the planning authority has specifically stated that the case of the Respondent No.6 was duly processed and it was referred to the Urban Development Department for approval under DCR 62 (3) and no objection to consider the said proposal under DCR 1991 was issued by UD Department dated 6th July, 2005 and, therefore, the proposal was processed by Respondent MCGM and the aforesaid sanction are accorded in accordance with the DC regulation by the Competent Authority and as there are no violation of the law as : 4 : contended by the Petitioners, the Petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Authorities have interpreted the DC regulations in favour of Respondent No.6, which is not a correct interpretation of the requirement as what is required to be permitted is as such site as per the DP plan is shopping mall which was earlier in existence when the Housing Society of Respondent No.6 initially constructed the building but the same cannot be interpreted to mean that the entire building can be converted into a shopping mall. On this Court making specific query to the learned counsel for the Petitioners as to why the Petitioners have approached this Court after the construction was almost completed, the learned counsel for the Petitioners pointed out that the Authorities did not furnish proper information under the Right to Information Act, which delayed the filing of the Petition. This fact has been specifically denied by the Executive Engineer of the MCGM in his affidavit in reply and it has been stated that whatever information was sought for by the Petitioners under Right to Information Act was given by the Respondent. 5. It is not disputed that the shopping mall is not : 5 : only completed but even Respondent No.6 has been issued occupation certificate by the sanctioning authority of the MCGM. 6. The contention of the Petitioners that the construction of the subject building is the cause of aggravating traffic congestion at the junction of the V.P.Road and 28th Road, Bandra(W) as it obstructs movement of traffic is not supported by any study or report of competent authority. Nothing is placed on record to show that the congestion of Traffic is due to the shopping mall except for the contention of the Petitioner. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, we do not think that this is a fit case that this Court should exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction and entertain this Petition as a public interest litigation. 7. Therefore, the Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.N. (J.N. (J.N. Patel, J.) Patel, J.) Patel, J.) (K.K. (K.K. (K.K. Tated, J.) Tated, J.) Tated, J.)