1 wp2443-09 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2443 OF 2009 Dr.Ramesh Elle ....Petitioner V/s. Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Pramod Bhosale with Ms.Kavita Shinde for the Petitioner. Mrs.Geeta Joglekar for the Respondent – B.M.C. Mr.D.A. Nalavade, G.P. for the Respondent – State. Mr.D.D. Madon, Senior Counsel with Mr.A.N. Jakhadi for Respondent Nos.6 and 7. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. MONDAY, 10TH JANUARY 2011 P.C. :- 1. The petitioner was one of the tenants of the respondent – Municipal Corporation in one of the chawls in Worli Division, in chawl No.1, Room No.4 on a building bearing CTS No.777 (part). The Municipal Corporation permitted respondent No.6 – developer to redevelop the property. The Letter of Intent was granted on 21.12.2005. The Municipal Corporation granted redevelopment permission specifically indicating that the tenants will be allotted the flats in the rehabilitation building on ownership basis in their capacity as members of the co-operative housing society, since the project was entrusted to respondent No.6 – developer, and the entire cost of the building was to be borne by respondent No.6, in order to enable the developer to carry 2 wp2443-09 out the work at its own costs, without charging any amount from the Corporation or from the tenants, all of whom would be given rehabilitation on the ownership basis, the developer was also permitted to dispose of the surplus FSI area on regular cost of their project. 2. By order dated 16.10.2006, the Maharashtra Costal Zone Management Authority informed the Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India that the aforesaid plot designated for existing municipal housing, became eligible for redevelopment with FSI of 2, even though the plot is in CRZ. It was further mentioned that it was decided that since the project was in CRZ, the proposal can be recommended to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India for grant of necessary CRZ clearance. The Government of India accordingly passed order dated 24.1.2007 (Exhibit “E”) and accorded clearance under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 for the above project, subject to the conditions specified therein. The said clearance specifically mentioned, inter-alia, as under :- “ The total plot area is 7872.14 sq. mtrs. After consuming the FSI of 2, the proposed built-up area would be 15744.28 sq. mtrs. which would include rehabilitation building area of 5912.19 sq. mtrs., proposed primary school area of 1045.00 sq. mtrs. proposed sale area of 8787.09 sq. mtrs. The proposed building will have 2 wings, each having stilts and 13 upper floors .................” 3. The petitioner’s apprehension in the present petition is that the permissible FSI is only 1.33 and not 2 which has been granted. Thus, according to him, the permission may be held to be wrongly granted leaving a sword over the petitioners. The Petitioner has further prayed that the construction of the building in question be stayed, as it is without requisite FSI. 4. Respondent No.6 has filed affidavit in reply and further 3 wp2443-09 affidavit in reply contesting the petition. It is pointed out in the affidavit in reply dated 30.1.2010 that the petitioner has made an imaginary grievance. Out of 13 chawls occupied by more than 100 tenants, only the petitioner has come forward in his individual capacity and filed the present petition on imaginary grounds. The petitioner, along with other tenants, will each be given and provided with a self- contained flat admeasuring 575 sq. ft. The petitioner will thus be benefited upon completion of the project. It is further pointed out at the hearing that respondent No.6 has already completed the civil work and only finishing work is left and thereafter, the flats will be alloted to the tenants, including the petitioner. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that when the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India has granted the clearance as far back as on 24.1.2007, permitting respondent No.6 to redevelop the property of the Municipal Corporation with FSI as indicated therein, we see no justification to entertain the petition, which is merely on the basis of the apprehension of alleged illegal construction on the ground of the alleged excess FSI. 6. Hence, we dismiss the petition without going into the controversies sought to be created. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.