Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. It is true that the DC Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 were notified on 20-2-1991 and came into force with effect from 25-3-1991. However, a doubt was raised whether the existing DC Regulations for Coastal Regulation Zone II (CRZ II) would mean the DC Rules, 1967 or Draft Development Control Regulations, 1989 which ultimately culminated into the DC Regulations, 1991 and, therefore, MoEF was consulted. MoEF issued a clarification on 8-9-1998 stating that the DC Regulations as existing on 19-2- 1991 would apply for all developmental activities in OSWP1469.09.doc Coastal Regulation Zone including CRZ II. MoEF also issued clarification on 18-8-2006 reiterating that the existing DC Regulations applicable to CRZ II areas in Mumbai would mean the DC Rules, 1967. Even the Municipal Corporation in its letter dated 31-12-2005 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, had expressed the view that the application made by the appellants for construction of a luxury hotel with additional FSI under the DC Rules, 1967 be granted under Rule 10(2) of the Rules.

20. On 2-2-1991 when the CRZ notification was issued, the only building regulations that were existing in city of Mumbai, were the DC Rules, 1967. In view of the con-

tents of CRZ II notification issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act which has the effect of prevailing over the provisions of other Acts, the appli- cation submitted by the appellants to develop the plot belonging to them would be governed by the provisions of the DC Rules, 1967 and not by the draft development regulations of 1989 which came into force on 20-2-1991 in the form of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991."

Since, on that date, 19th February 1991, the only building regulations in existence were the 1967 DC Rules, and since the CRZ Notification has a wide non- obstante clause, development applications for CRZ-II plots would be governed by the 1967 DC Regulations, not the 1989 draft regulations. We may note here that the Supreme Court upheld the decision of this Court in Overseas Chinese Cuisine (India) (P) Ltd v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to the same effect as regards the applicability of the 1967 DC Rules to CRZ-

The Supreme Court said that it could not, and Section 127 would continue to operate since all that the CRZ Notification does is to freeze FSI/FAR norms and pin these to the standards of the 1967 DC Rules. Thus, in Suresh Estates, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the protective and preservative objectives of the CRZ Notification. We must note here that the decision of this Court in Overseas Chinese Cuisine is of 2000. It pre- dates TCI's first application of 27th July 2004 to the State Government to be exempted from the operation of DCR 58. It also pre-dates TCI's development application of 5th September 2006 under the 1991 DC Regulations. It seems to us entirely unlikely that TCI was, as it claims, "unaware" of the legal situation as regards the CRZ Notification and the 1967 DC Rules till the decision in Suresh Estates. There is no manner of doubt that TCI's first application of 27th July 2004 was on legal advice. Yet it made no claim invoking the applicability of the 1967 DC Rules although, four years earlier, this Court in Overseas Chinese Cuisine had already pronounced on the matter; and the decision in Suresh Estates was still three years in the future.