Case: Pratibha Co-Optive. H. Society Ltd. &amp;Anr Vs. State Of Maharashtra &amp;Ors

2. Facts necessary and shorn of details are given as under. Pratibha Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Housing Society) made some unauthorised constructions in a 36 storeyed building in a posh and important locality of the city of Bombay. The Bombay Municipal Corporation issued a show cause notice dated August 7, 1984 calling upon the Housing Society to show cause within 7 days as to why the upper eight floors of the building should not be demolished so as to limit the development to the permissible Floor Space Index (FSI). In the notice it was stated that additional FSI to the extent of 2773 sq. mts. was gained by the Housing Society and that the construction work had already reached 36 floors and that on the basis of the actual area of the building, the upper eight floors were beyond the permissible FSI limit and as such were required to be removed. The Housing Society submitted a reply to the show cause notice by their letter dated August 13, 1984. The Administrator of the Bombay Municipal Corporation made an order on September 21, 1984 requiring the Housing Society to demolish 24, 000 sq. ft. on the eight upper floors of the building on the basis of 3000 sq. ft. on each floor. The Housing Society made a representation but the same was dismissed by the Administrator by order dated October 31, 1984. An appeal submitted by the Housing Society was also dismissed by the State Government on October 7 1985. The Housing Society then filed a Writ Petition No. 4500 of 1985 in the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on October 28, 1985. However, the High Court while dismissing the writ petition also observed as under  It would, however, be fair and just in the circumstances of the case to give a choice to the society to reduce the construction up to permissible limit or whatever other method they can think of. It is of course for the society to come forward with a proposal in that behalf. We therefore direct that in case the society comes with any such alternative proposal within the four corners of the rules and regulations within one month from today the Municipality may consider. *  The case of the Housing Society is that in pursuance to the said order it submitted application to the Municipal Corporation giving several alternative proposals on November 21, 1985. It may be noted at this stage that the Housing Society had preferred a Special Leave Petition No. 17351 of 1985 before this Court against the judgment of the High Court dated October 28, 1985 and the said special leave petition was dismissed by this Court on January 17, 1986. Further allegation of the Housing Society was that it submitted another proposal to the Municipal Corporation on February 17, 1986 and thereafter wrote to the Municipal Council on August 14, 1986 to consider their alternative proposals. A similar letter was also written to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. On August 29, 1986 the Municipal Commissioner fixed up a meeting for hearing the alternative proposals of the Housing Society. It has been alleged that in the said meeting the Housing Society had put forward its case in support of the new proposals and the Municipal Commissioner had thereafter informed the Housing Society that he would consider the said proposals and take decision. However, no decision was taken till the filling of the present special leave petition before this Court. It has been further alleged that on December 27, 1988 the Housing Society wrote a letter to the Municipal Commissioner to consider the alternative proposals mainly of vertical demolition of the building instead of demolishing the eight upper floors. It has been alleged that a meeting took place between the architects of the Housing Society as well as the officers of the Municipal Corporation in January 1989 wherein the officers of the Corporation agreed that instead of demolishing eight upper floors, demolition can be made vertically so as to bring the entire construction within the permissible FSI. It has been further alleged that immediately thereafter the Housing Society was informed that henceforth it should contact the Municipal Commissioner directly and not any officers of the Corporation. It has been further alleged that the Corporation without considering the proposals of the Housing Society entrusted the work of demolition of the upper eight floors of the building to a company. In these circumstances the Housing Society filed Writ Petition No. 3016 of 1989 in the High Court. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated December 19, 1989 and the appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by order dated March 9, 1990

Court's reasoning:
It is well settled that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not an appellate court on the administrative decisions taken by the authorities. It cannot be said that the decision taken by the Municipal Commissioner suffers from any want of jurisdiction or is violative of any law or rules. The proposal submitted by the Housing Society was got examined by the architects and engineers and thereafter the order was passed by the Municipal Commissioner. It cannot be said that the action of the Municipal Corporation is tainted with mala fides. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the Corporation that the Corporation has entrusted the matter for investigation by the CBI and suitable action is being processed against the guilty officers of the Corporation with whose connivance these illegal constructions were made by the Housing Society6. It is an admitted position that six floors have been completely demolished and a part of seventh floor has also been demolished. It was pointed out by Mr. K. K. Singhvi, learned counsel for the Corporation that the tendency of raising unlawful constructions by the builders in violation of the rules and regulations of the Corporation was rampant in the city of Bombay and the Municipal Corporation with its limited sources was finding it difficult to curb such activities. We are also of the view that the tendency of raising unlawful constructions and unauthorised encroachments is increasing in the entire country and such activities are required to be dealt with by firm hands. Such unlawful constructions are against public interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of multistoreyed buildings. The violation of FSI in the present case was not a minor one but was to an extent of more than 24, 000 sq. ft. Such unlawful construction was made by the Housing Society in clear and flagrant violation and disregard of FSI and the order for demolition of eight floors had attained finality right up to this Court. The order for demolition of eight floors has been substantially carried out and we find no justification to interfere in the order passed by the High Court as well as in the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner dated November 13, 1990