The Bombay High Court imposed a Cost of Rs 1,00,000/- on the Petitioners and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking setting aside of the amended plan approved on 26th March 2021 to the extent of granting an additional 0.73 Floor Space Index (FSI) to the plot in question considering notional plot area of said plot as 3124.09 sq.mts when actual physical area measures 1672.26 sq. mtrs.
The PIL filed by Sarthi Seva Sangh and others has further prayed to recompute the Floor Space Index by deducting additional 0.73 FSI and for demolition of the constructions made by the respondent no. 3 (Private Respondent) by consuming an additional 0.73 FSI. The petitioner has also made alternative prayer to the effect that the Municipal Commissioner of respondent no.1 (Mumbai Municipal Corporation) be directed to decide the complaint/notice dated 17th August, 2021 within thirty days or such period as directed by the High Court.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Madhav J. Jamdar held that it is settled position that before entertaining PIL, a duty has been cast on the High Court to verify that the PIL is genuine and bonafide and substantial public interest is involved in the PIL.
The Bench noted that the petitioners have very specifically stated in the petition that the petitioners have noticed only this case where there is violation of Development Control and Promotional Regulation, 2034 (DCPR) .
“It is very well-known that in the city like Mumbai, there are large number of unauthorised and illegal constructions which are carried out without taking permission from planning authority. There are several projects in which FSI violations have taken place. There are several slum projects where number of slum dwellers residing in slum areas in Mumbai are inflated to avail extra FSI in illegal manner”, observed the Bench.
It is further noted by the Court that earlier PIL no. 1 of 2017 was filed challenging the redevelopment on the plot which is the subject matter of the present PIL; however, the same was withdrawn on 2nd August 2019 on the ground that DCPR-2034 has come into effect and therefore the PIL has been rendered infructuous. The redevelopment on the same plot was targeted in 2017 and again targeted by the present PIL, with a specific statement that this is the only construction in the entire city of Mumbai, which has come to the notice of the petitioner where the provisions of DCPR are violated.
The senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the same advocate on record has filed the present PIL as well as the earlier PIL, although petitioners in both the PILs are different. This contention is raised to support their contention that this project is targeted for extraneous reasons; however, we deem it appropriate not to examine said aspect.
Considering various aspects as set out hereinabove, the High Court conclude that this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and particularly when the same is brought to the Court by labeling the same as PIL.
“As we have noted that the present PIL is filed for extraneous and motivated purposes, the same is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to the Tata Cancer Hospital, Parel, Mumbai. The same shall be paid within a period of two weeks from today”, the order reads.