IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2212 OF 2008 Inderjit M. Bhatia .. Petitioner V/s Sushila Baug Co Op Hsg Scy. Ltd. and Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.U. Kamdar i/b Ms Archana Khan for Petitioner Mr.K.K.Sionghavi,Sr.Advocate with Ms P.A.Purandare for Respondent no.2 Mr.M.D.Naik,AGP for Respondent no.3 CORAM : SHRI J.N.PATEL & SHRI K.K.TATED, JJ. DATE : 25th Sept. 2008. P.C.:- 1. The Petitioner challenges the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order bearing No.MCM/5769 dated 23-4-2007 and notice under Section 488 of M.M.C. Act vide order No.CE/1257/WS/AH dated 24-8-2007 being Exhs C and D and notice dated 18-6-2007 being Exhs. D-1 and D-2 to the petition. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent Corporation imposed excess premium for regularising unauthorised construction carried out by them. 3. The Respondent M.C.G.M. filed their affidavits in reply dated 27-9-2007 and 3-4-2008 and explained the unauthorised construction carried out by the Petitioner. : 2 : The case of the Respondent - M.C.G.M. is that the Petitioner has carried out work of 4th to 8th upper floors with over head tank and lift machine room over the existing residential building of Plot bearing CTS No.121(part) Santacruz without obtaining Commecement Certificate in the said work and without payment of premium for condoning the open space deficiency, stair case and other charges. Therefore, they issued Stop Work Notice under Section 354A of M.M.C. Act 1888 on 25-11-2002 and action under Section 53(1) of M.R.T.P.Act 1966 was also initiated on 3-10-2003 against the Petitioner. 4. In the meanwhile PIL No.379 of 2003 and W.P.No. 2822 of 2003 came to be filed in October 2003 for alleged FSI violation mainly in "K and R Wards" in this Hon’ble Court and grant of sanction/approvals were stayed by prohibiting order passed therein. The said PIL came to be decided on 5-5-2004 by the Hon’ble Division Bench inter alia directing the Commissioner, M.C.G.M., to dispose of pending proposal for regularisation of buildings in K, R and H(West) Wards amongst others on terms and conditions set out in the said order. Pursuant to the order dated 5th May, 2004 in P.I.L., the Commissioner, M.C.G.M. considered the Petitioner’s application dated 21st February, 2003 for : 3 : regularisation of the building situated at plot bearing CTS No.121(part), Final Plot No.53/A, Town Planning Scheme II, Santacruz and building plans sanctioned under No.CE/1257/WS/AH/MRTP 53(1) dated 3-10-2003. After giving hearing to the Petitioner, Municipal Commissioner passed speaking order dated 23-4-2007 and imposed premium for regularising unauthorised construction carried out by the Petitioner. The operative part of the said order dated 23-4-2007 reads thus :- "i) The loss of facility as a result of condonation/concession is assessed at market value and worked out as Rs.51,77,600/- to be paid to the occupants of the building after formation of society. Till such time said amount to be kept with M.C.G.M. as a disbursement amount towards compensation for loss of facility/amenity in the said neighbourhood of the building under reference. ii) I pass the order that an amount of Rs.2,50,300/- shall be paid to M.C.G.M. towards infrastructure development. : 4 : iii) An amount of Rs.1,20,38,800/- which is an enhanced fine for carrying out work beyond approval. The Developer shall pay aforesaid amount stated at Sr.Nos.4, 5 and 7 within 30 days from receipt of this order failing which I direct E.E.B.P. (H and K/E) to pursue the action by following due process of law." 5. In reply, M.C.G.M. has specifically given explanation on the basis of which they calculated the premium for regularising the unauthorised construction. The M.C.G.M. in their affidavit in reply dated 3-4-2008 annexed as Exh.1 explained the way in which they calculated premium in the present case. 6. Considering the reasons given by the M.C.G.M. in their affidavit in reply, we find that there is no merit in the present writ petition and there is no infirmity in the order passed by Municipal Commissioner dated 23-4-2007. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. : 5 : 7. At the request of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, the M.C.G.M. will not take any action for a period of four weeks from today to enable the Petitioner to approach the Supreme Court. (J.N. Patel, J.) (K.K. Tated, J) : 6 :