MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court confirmed the permissions for a 16-story redevelopment of a tenanted cessed structure from 1940 on Altamount Road, dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in 2013 challenging it.
The PIL, submitted by the Altamount Road Area Citizens Committee, alleged that the permissions were granted illegally and arbitrarily, establishing a “wrong and dangerous precedent.” The state contended that the permissions were lawful, an assertion with which the High Court concurred, stating that the PIL appeared to target the builder rather than address genuine public concerns.
Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad stated in their Thursday ruling, “A petition masquerading as a public interest litigation cannot be considered valid when it does not disclose credible facts supporting a broader public interest.” They emphasized that the PIL lacked true public interest, describing it as an attempt to obstruct construction.
The property in question, initially known as ‘Lincoln House,’ has been in existence since September 1, 1940, and received redevelopment permission in 2002 with the commencement certificate issued in November of that year.
Senior counsel Darius Shroff, representing the petitioners, claimed that the permissions granted to the builder compromised essential living standards, violating the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, particularly due to insufficient fire escape provisions. The court was informed that the building was completed in 2023.
The state, represented by senior counsel Milind Sathe (now the AG), alongside builder Krishna and Company, countered the PIL, asserting that it was fundamentally based on incorrect assumptions regarding the Development Control Regulations (DCR). Sathe argued that the High Court found that the building permissions complied with DCR requirements for open spaces and other regulations, while contending that there were no violations in the proposed elevations or lily ponds.
The PIL asserted that residents around Altamount Road would face infrastructural challenges, potentially affecting the neighborhood’s safety and security.
Initially conceived as two buildings, the plan was later consolidated into a single structure. The High Court noted, “Sathe correctly pointed out that the established date for determining minimum open space is when the IOD was first authorized.” The court also acknowledged Kamath’s argument that the PIL included misleading assertions aimed at fabricating a public-interest narrative.
The scope of judicial review in a PIL, as highlighted by the High Court, is “very limited.” The court stated it cannot interfere with executive decisions as long as reasonable procedures are followed. It will not intervene even if some procedural norms have not been strictly adhered to.
The High Court further emphasized that the purpose of entertaining a public interest litigation should not involve complaints of a personal nature or political motives. The court must exercise caution when addressing public interest petitions, leading to the dismissal of the PIL and the vacating of a 2018 interim order.
