Janhit Manch vs Urban Development Department

1. The   Transfer   Petition  and  the  Special  Leave 2 Petition arising out of similar facts and events have been heard together and are being decided by this   common   order.   The   background   facts   giving rise to the transfer petition as well as Special Leave Petition need to be noted first.

2. The   parties   in   both   the   cases   being   common shall be hereinafter referred to as described in the   transfer   petition.   Janhit   Manch   and   another which had filed the PIL at the Bombay High Court are referred to as petitioners whereas, Shri Ram Urban   Infrastructure   Ltd.(SRUIL)   is   referred   to as   respondent   No.6   and   other   respondents   are referred to as described in transfer petition.

5. The   respondent   No.6   had   proceeded   to construct   a   56   storey   building.   Respondent   No.6 also   proposed   to   construct   a   public   parking lot(PPL)   of   three   Basements   +   Lower   ground   + Stilt + 15 Floors. Stop Work Notice was issued by Mumbai   Municipal   Corporation   on   14.12.2011   to respondent   No.6   to   desist   from   continuing   with construction of public parking lot. The said Stop Work Notice was challenged by respondent No.6 in Bombay City Civil Court by L.C. Suit No.2942 of 2011.   After   judgment   of   the   High   Court   dated 13.05.2013,   the   respondent   No.6   approached   the Municipal   Commissioner.   The   Municipal Commissioner   passed   an   order   on   12.09.2013.   The Municipal Commissioner in his order observed that

8. The petitioners' SLP(C) No.20279 of 2013 was finally   heard,   in   which   separate   and   dissenting judgments   were   delivered   on   25.04.2014,   which mandated   the   SLP   to   be   referred   to   a   larger Bench.   The   petitioner   had   filed   another   PIL No.133  of 2015, where certain amendments  in DCR 6 were   challenged.   The   Writ   Petition   filed   by respondent   No.6   being   Writ   No.2223   of   2013   was decided   on   22nd,   25th  and   27th  January   2016 alongwith First Appeal No.884 of 2015.

9. Municipal   Commissioner   was   directed   to   hear the respondent No.6 and to decide what should be the reasonable refuge area in the said building. The   order   dated   12.09.2013   was   confirmed   in parts. The SLP(C) No.20279 of 2013 was listed on 11.03.2016  on which date, the Three Judge Bench disposed   off   the   SLP   holding   that   in   view   of judgment   of   the   High   Court   dated   22 nd,   25th  and 27th, January 2016 no issue is alive, however, the liberty was granted to make a mention for recall of the order.

10. The judgment of Bombay High Court dated 22nd, 25th  and 27th  January, 2016 was challenged by the respondent   No.6   before   this   court   in   SLP(C) No.10704­05 of 2016. This Court on 29.04.2016 has 7 issued   a   notice   in   SLP   of   respondent   No.6, however,   no   interim   order   was   passed.   The petitioners   also   preferred   the   SLP(C)   CC Nos.13527­13528   of   2016,   challenging   the   above judgment   of   the   Bombay   High   Court.   Petitioners also filed IA 6 of 2016 for recalling the Three Judge   Bench   order   dated   11.03.2016,   contending that   several   issues   remain   alive   for adjudication.   After   the   order   of   Bombay   High Court   dated   22nd,   25th  and   27th  January,   2016, respondent   No.3   passed   an   order   on   31.08.2016. Respondent No.3 inter alia held that:

[Note:   The   total   refuge   area allowed   by   the   Commissioner surrounding   the   flats   on   each floor   amounts   to   60%   of   the habitable area on the respective floor] 2.4 entire refuge floors were to be blocked.

24. In   view   of   forgoing   discussion,   SLP(C) Nos.10704­10705 of 2016 filed against order dated 27.01.2016   being   pending   consideration,   ends   of justice   be   served   in   allowing   the   transfer 21 petition transferring the PIL No.17 of 2017 from Bombay   High   Court   to   this   Court   to   be   heard alongwith   SLP(C)   Nos.10704­10705   of   2016   and SLP(C) CC Nos. 13527­13528 of 2016. The transfer petition is thus allowed.

25. Coming to SLP(C) Nos.11749­11750 of 2017, in which   interim   order   dated   24.02.2017   and 17.03.2017   have   been   passed   by   the   Bombay   High Court,   in   view   of   the   order   passed   in   Transfer Petition(C) No.567 of 2017, the PIL No.17 of 2017 is   being   transferred   to   this   Court.   As   on   the date we do not see any good ground to set aside the aforesaid interim orders, however, PIL No.17 of   2017   having   been   transferred   to   be   heard   by this   Court,   it   is   open   for   the   parties   to   pray for   alteration/modification/variation   of   the aforesaid   interim   orders   before   this   Court.   The SLP(C)   Nos.11749­11750   of   2017   are   dismissed subject to above observations.

26. In   result,   Transfer   Petition   is   allowed   and the SLPs are dismissed subject to observations as made above.

JULY 31, 2017.