JUDGMENT - M.B. SHAH, C.J. :---The question involved in these two public interest petitions is whether the Municipal Corporation should be permitted to construct toilet block near "Gateway of India". Petitioners have prayed that the Municipal Corporation be prevented from constructing toilet block.

2.In our view, this not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Corporation is providing a facility which is a must for human beings at a place which is visited by thousands of persons every day. Facility of providing toilet block is also to prevent nuisance arising because of unauthorised use of the open space to answer natural calls by people visiting the area. Further, the resolution to construct toilet block was already passed on 5th August, 1991. No objection was taken at the relevant time. Subsequently, toilet block is constructed and thereafter the present petition is filed on 13th March, 1992.

3.Apart from this, on merits also, we do not think that any interference is called for by this Court.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that -

(a) the construction of a toilet block is in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated 19th February, 1991 of the Central Government, which provides for the Coastal States and Union Territories to frame Coastal Zone Management and prohibits construction within particular limits as provided therein;

(b) it is in violation of Regulation 67 of the Development Control Rules, 1991; The area in and around the Gateway of India is clearly an area of outstanding natural beauty, a historical area and heritage precinct near the water front and the State of Maharashtra has recognised it as a heritage area and precinct ; and

(c) Municipal Corporation has mala fide decided to demolish the existing toilet block near Taj Mahal Hotel so as to favour the management of respondent No. 5 and to construct near Gateway of India. That the construction of toilet near Gateway of India by demolishing the existing toilet block near Taj Hotel is mala fide so as to favour the management of respondent No. 5.

5.As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted as under :---

(a) that the allegation of mala fide is made only for the sake of challenging the scheme framed by the Corporation. It is pointed out that the existing toilet facility is in a shaded area which is misused by anti-social elements for anti-social activities including dealing in drugs. To meet with the contention that it is mala fide, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in any case the respondent Nos. 1 and 5 have no objection for maintaining two toilets blocks, one across Taj Hotel and the other which is in dispute.

(b) That there is no question of application of CRZ-I to the present case as the area is not declared as ecologically sensitive historical heritage by the Central Government or State Government. With regard to the application of CRZ-II the learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the construction is in accordance with CRZ-II as a toilet block is constructed on the existing road and not on the sea-ward side of the existing road.

(c) Construction of toilet blocks is not in violation of Heritage Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1995. It is in accordance with the Regulations and Regulation 67 specifically provides that development can be made with the prior written permission of the Municipal Commissioner.

6.At this stage we may state that major portion of the construction work of the toilet is over. However, the toilet block is not used because of interim order passed by this Court on 16th March, 1992. Interim relief is granted having regard to the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Notification issued therein.

Re : Contention of applicability of CRZ-I and/or CRZ-II

7.In the present case it has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the respondents ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document