S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seek a quashing order, in respect of the sanction of the building plans for alteration/conversion of the existing building into a multiplex, mini cinema-cum-commercial complex at Savitri Cinema point Greater Kailash-II. This sanction was issued in favour of the 7th respondent. A consequential direction to restrain that respondent from raising construction and orders to quash the permission granted by various authorities impleaded as respondents have also been claimed.

2. The first petitioner is a registered Society; it claims to represent respondents of the Greater Kailash-II; the other petitioners are residents of that locality. Greater Kailash-II is spread over an area of about 3.40 acres containing 1680 residential plots of various sixes. It's estimated population is about 15,000. It is claimed that there are approximately 8500 vehicles in the entire colony. The petitioners have annexed a plan and stated that the Greater Kailash colony is surrounded by other colonie's, such as Greater Kailash Enclave, Alakhnanda, a cluster of multi-storey properties, Masjid Moth (also G.K.III); Mandakini Enclave and Chitaranjan Park. There are at least five schools in the colony and its vicinity and several Institutions ' such as, Hospital, Gurudwaras, Temples and so on. The estimated population in the Alakhnanda Complex is about 10,000 and about 3,000 people reside in Greater Kailash Part-II Enclave and Masjid Moth localities. The petitioners claim that the access into the colony is one of the most important access into the colony and the other localities such as Alakhnanda, Greater Kailash Enclave, Mandakini Enclave etc. from the outer ring road are through a junction where the Savitri Cinema is located. That point of entry has assumed a critical importance as the common ingress into various localities from the ring road. The Savitri Cinema, which is located at the corner of the point where such entry point is located, was shut down after the Uphaar Cinema Fire tragedy in 1997.

3. It is averred that on account of immense traffic congestion at the entry point, (which is at T. Junction) a one-way fly over was constructed and an existing traffic light was removed. Nevertheless, the entry into the Greater Kailash, Part-II from ring road continues to remain severely congested due to the high volume of traffic, which is also on account of its being the entry to the other surrounding localities. It is claimed that the 7th respondent started demolishing the erstwhile Savitri Cinema building and putting up a structure some time in 2003. The petitioners became aware that a multiplex-cum-commercial complex was being developed with four cinema halls. This, it is stated, would lead to tremendous congestion at the entry point and intolerable burden on the respondents of the locality since a large number of patrons would visit the Cinema Halls and the commercial complex, leading to traffic congestion and parking chaos. It is claimed that once the proposed building complex is completed and put to use, the commuting into and living in the colony particularly, would become difficult.

4. The first petitioner represented to the MCD, the Delhi Urban Arts Commission, Chief Fire Officer and the Police authorities complaining of violation of building byelaws and various other provisions of law. The petitioners also met with officials of the Delhi Urban Arts Commission (The Commission) and gave a written representation on 12.11.2003. At that time the seventh respondent was also represented. The Commission addressed a letter on 8.12.2003 to the 7th respondent's, Architect, stating its observations. The Commission had decided to refer the issue to the Standing Sub Committee on traffic transportation proposals, to consider all aspects. The Commission also indicated that it would associate the Delhi traffic police as well as the MCD and that the architects were advi