Bombay High Court
Lalchand R. Soni, (Deceased) Through ... vs The Commissioner Mcgm on 6 March, 2024
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
908-OSWP-654-2024.DOC
Wadhwa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 654 OF 2024
Lalchand R Soni (Deceased) through Ravindra
Lalchand Soni ...Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, MCGM & Ors ...Respondents
Dr A Chandrachud, with Sanjeev Sawant, i/b Samir Suryawanshi,
for the Petitioner.
Ms A Wandrewala, with Zulfikar Jairwala, Shabbir Jariwala, i/b
Jariwala Associates, for Respondents Nos 7 to 10.
Mr Anil Singh, Senior Advocate, with Ms Pooja Yadav, i/b. Sunil
Sonawane, for the Respondent-MCGM.
Ms Nazia Sheikh, AGP, for the State.
Mr Naman Karaniya, Asst Engineer (Building & Factory) H/West-
present.
Mr A Ahuja, Asst Engineer (Building & Proposals) H/West-present.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Kamal Khata, JJ.
DATED: 6th March 2024 PC:-
1. Respondents Nos 7 to 10 are represented by Ms Wandrewala. She states that an Affidavit on behalf of those Respondents is ready. It is taken on record. It starts from page no 228. Mr Singh on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ("MCGM") requires time to file an Affidavit in Reply.
2. The point is narrow, and it relates to the two proposals running simultaneously on behalf of the Petitioner, namely, to Page 1 of 2 6th March 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 14:00:42 ::: 908-OSWP-654-2024.DOC reconstruct the parapet wall and also to enclose the balcony portion. So far as the parapet wall is concerned that issue is no longer live, because the MCGM has previously clarified that no municipal permission is required only for the construction of the parapet wall. What the Petitioner seeks is that he be treated on parity with other flat owners in the same building. He has argued that other flat owners have indeed enclosed balcony spaces and there is no reason why this should be selectively denied to the Petitioner.
3. The question is not of, or only of, parity. The issue is whether we can compel the grant of permission for enclosure of an open balcony if this is found to violate permissible FSI and development norms. That has nothing at all to do with internal disputes between the Petitioner and the Society. If prevalent FSI standards do not allow such an enclosure of the balcony, and if this will violate building and development norms, we cannot possibly pass an order contrary to law. That computation will be necessary.
4. Mr Singh will take the necessary instructions whether this work can or cannot be permitted. We are not permitting work without necessary municipal permission.
5. List the matter on 14th March 2024.
(Kamal Khata, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 2 of 2 6th March 2024 ::: Uploaded on - 07/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 07/03/2024 14:00:42 :::