The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for genuine public interest in public interest litigations, the abuse of PILs, and the importance of weeding out frivolous petitions.

M. S. Sonak, J.

1. Rule. With the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the respondents, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The petitioner, who claims to have instituted the present petition in 'public interest', seeks the following substantive reliefs in this petition :

“(a) this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction in the nature of Writ, calling for record and proceeding relating to the amendment to Clause 2 AND 4 of DCR 33(7) Appendix III, dated 21/05/2011 and after judicially examining the reasonableness, propriety, rationale and the apparent conflict with the Constitutional provisions thereof; the impugned amendment dated 21/05/2011, only with respect to the amendment to Clause 2 AND 4 of DCR 33 (7) Appendix III, may please be quashed and set aside;

(b) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to provide information about all the cases, in island city, in which transfer of “Surplus area” has been permitted under the amended Clause 4 of DCR 33(7) Appendix III, including the transfer of “Surplus Area” by the Respondent No. 7 & 8 AND upon such discloser; this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to judicially examine the same for violation of Article 14 & 15 of the Constitution and quash and set aside the approval dated 17/10/2014 granted by the Respondent No. 1 in favour of the Respondent No. 7 & 8;

(c) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 4 and the Respondent No. 5 to examine the issue of evasion of stamp duty by the developers like the Respondent No. 7 & 8; in the island city of Mumbai, under the guise of “surrender of surplus area” to MHADA (Tri Party agreement dated 22/01/2016 Ex – to the petition), and if there is evasion of stamp duty, appropriate action in accordance with law may please be directed to be initiated;

(d) this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, directions or directions in the nature of Writ to the Respondent Authorities, or any other empowered Agency / Authority, to carry out necessary investigation into the issue of generation of black money generated through the “Tri-Party Agreement” dated 22/01/2016 and all other “tri-Party Agreements” of similar nature executed by the Respondent No. 1 with various developers in the island city of Mumbai.”

3. Mr. Manoj Harit, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no personal interest in the subject matter of the present petition, which has been instituted by the petitioner in 'public interest'. He submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Sukhlaji Street, Mumbai Central (East), where, the respondent nos. 7 and 8 are developing the huge construction project taking undue advantage of the amendments to clauses 2 and 4 of Development Control Regulations 33(7) Appendix III, dated 21 May 2011. Mr. Harit submitted that the amendments to DCR 33(7) are unconstitutional and therefore, the petitioner is a proper relator, in public interest, to challenge the same. Mr. Harit submitted that in the past, the petitioner had instituted PIL No. 65 of 2013 concerning illegal usurpation / grabbing of plot of land belonging to Nair Hospital, in which petition, interim relief has also been granted. This according to Mr. Harit, establishes the bona fides of the petitioner in instituting the present petition.

4. Mr. Harit submitted that on account of unconstitutional amendments to clauses 2 and 4 of DCR 33(7) Appendix III dated 21 May 2011, the builders and developers like the respondent nos. 7 and 8 are abusing the benefit of enhanced FSI, to the detriment of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and therefore, there is public interest involved in declaring the said amendments as ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India. Mr. Harit further submitted that the respondent nos. 7 and 8