Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service. With the consent of the learned counsel taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought to challenge in a petition filed in the public interest, a project which involves the construction of a multistoreyed car park together with a commercial complex at Nariman Point, Mumbai.

3. The parcel of land in question comprises of Plot Nos. 240 and 240A situated at Block III of the Backbay Reclamation area. By a notification dated 15th June, 1983, the State Government appointed the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority ("MMRDA") as the Special Planning Authority for the undeveloped areas comprised within Blocks III, IV, V and VI of the Backbay Reclamation Scheme. That appointment came to be effected in terms of the provisions of Section 40(1)(c) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ("the Act"). By a notification dated 1st March, 1985 (and a corrigendum dated 1st July, 1986) MMRDA declared its intention to prepare a Development Plan for the aforesaid blocks. After a survey was carried out under Section 25 of the Act, MMRDA as the Special Planning Authority prepared a Draft Development Plan and by a notice dated 4th May, 1990 issued under Section 26 of the Act invited suggestions and objections to the draft plan. The planning committee considered the suggestions and objections received and following the procedure prescribed by Section 28, the draft plan was submitted to the State Government for its sanction on 8th October, 1991. The State Government by its resolution of 3rd March, 1993 returned the draft plan to MMRDA with a direction to resubmit the plan after incorporating certain modifications. MMRDA thereafter published notices on 21st and 22nd July, 1994 in the newspapers and resubmitted the draft development plan on 23rd September, 1994 for the sanction of the Government. Eventually, by notifications dated 3rd June, 2000 and 17th June, 2001, the Government of Maharashtra sanctioned the draft development plan for the Backbay Reclamation Scheme comprised within the aforesaid blocks, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 31 of the Act. The Government appointed 24th July, 2000 as the date on which the sanctioned development plan would come into force and 19th April, 2001 as the date on which a schedule of modifications would come into force.

7. The petitioners, it is common ground, did not submit a bid in response to the tender notice. Larsen & Toubro Limited, the sixth respondent, submitted a bid in response to the tender notice which was accepted by MMRDA by a resolution dated 23rd January, 1998. On 17th April, 1998. MMRDA addressed a letter to the sixth respondent communicating its formal acceptance of the tender, subject to the payment of a premium of Rs. 23 Crores in consideration of MMRDA agreeing to lease the plots of land bearing Nos. 240 and 240A admeasuring 5663.46 sq.mtrs. with a permissible built up area of 17,500 sq.mtrs. for the construction of a multistoreyed car park and 6402 sq.mtrs. for a commercial centre on a lease of 80 years. The sixth respondent was called upon to pay an amount of Rs. 10.50 Crores, representing 50% of the premium after the adjustment of the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 1.00 Crore within 30 days of the receipt of the letter. Correspondence was thereafter exchanged between the parties since, according to the sixth respondent, there were certain encumbrances on the two plots of land which were required to be removed by MMRDA. Two writ petitions were filed before this Court, the first being Writ Petition No. 2081 of 1998 by the Rotary Club of Bombay Sea Land Foundation and the second, being Writ Petition No. 2480 of 1998, by Larsen & Toubro Ltd., the sixth respondent to these proceedings. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. had paid the first instalment of Rs. 10.5 Crores on 15th June, 1998. On 15th February, 1999, this Court disposed of the two writ petitions by an order passed in terms of Minutes. The dispute in the writ petition filed by the Rotary Club of Bombay Sea Land Foundation related to a public toilet facility on the existing plots. The writ petition filed by Larsen & Toubro Ltd. had arisen out of a notice issued by MMRDA on 8th November, 1998 purporting to terminate the allotment of the plots and to forfeit the EMD. Consequent upon the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition, time was granted to Larsen & Toubro Ltd. to furnish a cheque for Rs. 11.50 Crores till 25th February, 1999 and, in view whereof, MMRDA agreed to withdraw its notice of termination. MMRDA in turn agreed that it would be entitled to encash the cheque immediately after unencumbered possession of the plot was handed over to the sixth respondent. There is no dispute about the fact that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 15th February, 1999, the second instalment of Rs. 11.50 Crores was paid on 25th February, 1999.

12. Insofar as these proceedings are concerned, Plot Nos. 240 and 240A fall in the C-I Zone (the Local Commercial Zone). In fact, as far back as on 22nd May, 1998 a clarification was issued by MMRDA that these two plots were located in the Commercial Zone under the then draft development proposal. On 20th October, 2000, MMRDA clarified that under the sanctioned development plan for the Backbay Reclamation Scheme, the lands in question fell in the C-I zone and could be developed in accordance with the provisions of Development Control Regulation 9(IV)(i). MMRDA as already noted earlier, is the Special Planning Authority appointed by the State Government inter alia for Blocks III, IV, V and VI of the Backbay Reclamation Scheme under Section 40(I)(c) of the Act. MMRDA in its affidavit filed before this Court on 26th February, 2002 has stated that the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai framed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and sanctioned by the State Government have been applied to the development of lands falling within the area of the Special Planning Authority, comprised in Blocks III to VI of the Backbay Reclamation Scheme, subject to the modification that the expression "Mumbai Municipal Corporation" and "the Municipal Commissioner" shall be substituted by the expression "Executive Committee of MMRDA" and "Metropolitan Commissioner" respectively.

24. On behalf of the sixth and seventh respondents, it was attempted to be submitted during the course of the hearing that the requirement of 102 car parking spaces for the food stalls and food court which are to be handed over to MMRDA must be met out of the 250 car parking spaces available to the public. It is not possible for us to accept that submission urged on behalf of the sixth and seventh respondents. Tender condition 9(a) clearly stipulates that "the allottee shall hand over to the MMRDA or its nominee free of cost 250 car spaces along with ancillary facilities for operating a public pay and park car park." Moreover, in case the allottee is able to accommodate more than 500 cars, he shall hand over free of cost 25 percent of the additional car spaces to MMRDA or its nominee. There is merit in the position of MMRDA that the obligation to maintain parking facilities as an incident of the permissible commercial user under Clause 9(b) is independent of the obligation to hand over 250 parking spaces to MMRDA for a public pay and park. Learned counsel for the seventh respondent urged that under Clause 9(c) of the Tender conditions, the allottee is free to use his share of car parking spaces for operating a car park, or to dispose it off for captive use; and that the market price of these 102 spaces would be between Rs. 10 to 15 Crores which is part of the profit element of the developer. We decline to accept the suggestion that the requirement of maintaining 250 car parking spaces is liable to be reduced, as suggested by the seventh respondent. If the submission of the seventh respondent were to be accepted, that would result in a reduction in the extent of parking spaces available even below the 200 spaces available in the open plots of land. That cannot be countenanced. We have made it abundantly clear during the course of the hearing, which we now reaffirm in the course of this judgment that in accordance with the terms of the tender and the affidavit filed before this Court by MMRDA, 250 car parking spaces have to be handed over by the sixth and seventh respondents to MMRDA which shall be maintained as a pay and park facility for the general public. These 250 car parking spaces shall be in addition to those car parking spaces which are required to be maintained, and as, the case may be, to be handed over to MMRDA as an incident of the utilisation of commercial space.