JUDGMENT :

GS Patel, J.

1. Rule. There is an affidavit in reply from page-142 of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Hence, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”) and various authorities or officers. Respondent No. 5, added by a relatively recent amendment is the Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee (“MHCC”). The Petitioner is a proprietorship of one Bhavesh Nandani. The firm is a real estate developer.

3. The subject of the Petition is the proposed redevelopment by the Petitioner of a property in Mumbai’s Fort area. This stands on CS No. 486, 487, 488, 489, 490 of the Fort Division. Altogether, the plot is 323.57 sq mts. It stands at the junction of the Barbar Lane (Nadirshah Sukhiya Street) and Pitha Street. There are buildings on this property. It is not in dispute that the location of the property falls in Serial No. 633(6) of the list of Heritage Sites and Heritage Precincts as formulated under the applicable Development Control Regulations. This is known as the Fort Heritage Precinct.

4. The prayer in the Petition is first for a certiorari to delete and strike d