Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. He would state, respondent No.3 intends to run a Pre- Primary / Nursery and is required to comply with the „Development Controls for Educational Facilities‟ under Table 13.4 of the MPD 2021 and not with the „General Terms and Conditions‟ as delineated under Para 15.4. It is well settled that if the status (in this case MPD 2021) prescribes a specific and special controls for a specific / particular category (in this case educational facilities) then it is these specific conditions which have to be complied with and met and these shall prevail and override the general terms and conditions prescribed elsewhere. In the event there is a variance/ conflict between the conditions prescribed under the special category (educational facilities in this case) under S. No. (1) of Table 13.4 and the general terms and conditions as under Para 15.4, the conditions prescribed under Table 13.4 shall prevail. The control prescribed under S.No. (1) of Table 13.4 is „parking standard @ 1.33 ECS per sq. M. Of floor area‟, This has been specifically provided under the column „Other Controls‟ in Table 13.4. The same very column under Table 13.4 further prescribes that the practice of providing dedicated Pre-Primary / Nursery plots in the layout plan has been discontinued. In the „Notes‟ at the bottom of the said Table 13.4, it has again been reiterated that Pre-Primary / Nursery‟s are permissible in residential use premises as per the Mixed Use Policy. As per this norm of 1.33 ECS per 100 sq. m. of floor area, the respondent No.3 is required to provide an ECS (Equivalent Care Space) of 1.33 ECS per 100 Sq m x 4, i.e., the total built up area / floor area of 400 sq m built up area, i.e., 5.32 ECS. The petitioner is appending photographs of 11 cars being parked in the separate independent driveway of the respondent No.3‟s Pre-Primary / Nursery, which is 5.68 ECS in excess of the prescribed norm/control as prescribed under table 13.4. As the parking spaces available within the plot/said property of the respondent No.3 is in surplus of the minimum requirement, the controversy in its entirety is rendered otiose. This norm/control under table 13.4 which alone is applicable to the respondent No.3‟s case is at variance with the norm/control provided under clause (v) under the heading „Other Terms and Conditions‟ of Para 15.4.