SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Bom) 416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
B.N. Srikrishna Dr. Pratibha Upasani, JJ.
Sadanand S. Varde others.... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 2343 of 1992, decided on 14-6-2000.
Advocates appeared :
G.G. Kalsekar with A.R. Tripathi i/b Shantilal Co., for the petitioners.
B.P. Apte, A.A.G. with Ms. Geeta Shastri, for respondent No. 1.
E.P. Bharucha, Sr.A. with Kevin Setalvad and P.V. Naik, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
S.G. Page with R.C. Master and D.T. Palekar, for respondent No. 4.
M.I. Sethna, Sr.A. with R. Asokan, for respondent No. 5.
Virar Tulzapurkar with P.K. Samdani and Borgis Colabawala i/b Gagrat Co., for respondent Nos. 6 and 9.
Rajni Iyer with Ameet Naik i/b. Wadia Gandhy Co., for respondent No. 7.
D.A. Malkani, for respondent No. 10.

Headnote:Articles 32 and 226-Public Interest Litigation-The petition was filed challenging the allotment of plot for the construction of Hotel through the Writ Petition under Article 226 in High Court-The jurisdictions and powers of the High Courts and Supreme Court under Article 226 and 32 are virtually limitless except for self imposed limitations-The policy matters have been left by the courts for the authorities to decide beyond the purview of the judicial review-Hence, the relief can not be granted in such matters of litigation.-Court has gathered them as best as we can and the contentions of the Petitioners can be broadly summarized under the following heads:

       (a) Violation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Rules.

       (b) Contravention of ULCA and the exemption order made the under.

       (c) Contravention of provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning, Act, 1966.

       (d) Violation of the sanctioned Development Plan.

       (e) Challenge to decision of the Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India.

       (f) Challenge to the Corrigendum Notification dated 22nd November 1996.

       (g) Challenge to sanctioned Development Plan.

       (h) Challenge to permission granted by the State Pollution Control Board.

       (i) Contravention of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and Development Control regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991.

       (j) Contravention of the Development Control Regulation No. 59.

       (k) Amalgamation of sixth and ninth Respondents fraudulent, illegal and intended to circumvent law.

       (1) Application of Chapter XX-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

       SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW -

       It is necessary to chalk out the compass within which this Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 226 in such matters. Doubtless, judicial review has been held to be a basic feature of the Indian Constitution and the power of the constitutional Courts, whether they be High Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, or the Supreme Court under Article 32, is virtually limitless except for self-imposed limitations in the interest of administration of justice and the dictates of prudence. A Public Interest litigation is not adversary in nature, but is intended to focus the public interest aspect before the Court. If the Court is apprised of substantial injury to public interest, the Court is empowered and duty bound to interfere to do justice to the inarticulate public whose interest is projected as affected. Despite the awesome powers available in writ jurisdiction, the Courts have constructively bridled this power and deferred to experts in matters of public interest where, in view of the amplitude of complexity and technical nature involved, a judicial proceedings in the nature of a Writ Petition would be wholly inappropriate for determmation of the issues thrown up. Police matters have also been rightly left for the public authorities to decide and the final say in such matters should normally not come within the purview of judicial review.

       Sections 24 and 25-Construction of Hotel.- The Land on which the Hotel was to be constructed was exempted under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and there existed proper allotment of the land by the competent authority. Since there won not any breach of provisions of statutes or statutory rules or notifications etc., the construction of the Hotel was valid and proportion the eye of law.

Judgment

B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---This writ petition under Article 226 read with Articles 14 and 48-A of the Constitution of India is a Public Interest Litigation by the petitioners who are tax payers and rate payers residing in Bandra area and claim to be deeply interested in environmental protection and planned and orderly development of the city of Mumbai. The first petitioner is the President of the Bombay Civic Trust and the second petitioner is the President of the Save Bombay Committee. First petitioner was for a number of years Municipal Councillor and a Member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and later of the Council. He is also an ex-Minister of the Government of Maharashtra. Second petitioner was an active member of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay for a number of years and is active in the field of environment protection. The third petitioner was a Professor of Bombay University who takes keen interest in environment protection. The fourth petitioner was Director and Labour Advisory in Siemens. The fifth petitioner is a businessman and a founder member of Mumbai Grahak Panchayat. The sixth petitioner is an executive in an International Bank in Bombay and the seventh petitioner was a Senior Manager of the State Bank of India and later consultant to the World Bank. The first respondent is the State of Maharashtra; the second respondent is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the third respondent is the Commissioner thereof. The fourth respondent is the Union of India. The fifth respondent is the appropriate authority under section 269-UA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The sixth respondent is the original owner of plot bearing R.S. Nos. 416 and 417 (Part) situated at Byramji Jijeebhoy Road, Bandra (West), which land is the subject matter of this writ petition. The seventh respondent is a Builder and the transferee of the land described hereinabove. The eighth respondent was the Minister of Revenue in the Government of Maharashtra at the relevant time. The ninth respondent is Enjay Hotels Private Limited and the tenth respondent is Devdut Co-operative Housing Society Limited, both being subsequently added as party respondents in the writ petition.

2. The petitioners claim to be deeply interested in environmental issue and have jointly moved this writ petition to invoke the constitutional powers of this Court to obtain directions against the respondents for what the petitioners feel is unconstitutional, illegal and unjustified depredation of environmental resources in the Bandra Lands End area.

3. The petition had an extremely chequered history and it is necessary to recount the facts leading to the writ petition in some detail so as to appreciate the plethora of complicated legal issues thrown up for consideration of this Court.

FACTS

4. Land's End Bandra is a peninsular piece of land which juts into the sea, being covered on the East, North and West by the Sea. It comprises a hill known as Mount Marry hill which houses the well known Mount Marry Church. The hill slopes towards the Mahim Bay on the Eastern side and the Arabian sea on the Western side. The area around the slopes has developed into a posh residential locality which is used to house spacious bungalows owned by the elite of Bombay. In course of time, the bungalows have given way to multi-storied buildings. As the tip of this peninsular piece of land are situated the ruins of an ancient Portuguese fort known as Bandra fort, which fort has been declared as a protected monument under section 4(3) of the Maharashtra Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Act, 1960 (Mah. XII of 1961). There has been considerable development on this peninsular piece of land and a developed road runs North-South almost to the tip of the peninsular area. Towards the West seaward of this road, there exists a five star hotel, ""Sea Rock"", whose construction had been permitted much before the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification under the Environment (Protection)







































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top