1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 567 of 2017

JANHIT MANCH & ANR             ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.      ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) NOS. 11749­11750 of 2017

SHREE RAM URBAN 

INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.       ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA  & ORS.     ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1.The Transfer Petition and the Special Leave

2

Petition arising out of similar facts and events

have been heard together and are being decided by

this common order. The background facts giving

rise to the transfer petition as well as Special

Leave Petition need to be noted first.

2.The parties in both the cases being common

shall be hereinafter referred to as described in

the transfer petition. Janhit Manch and another

which had filed the PIL at the Bombay High Court

are referred to as petitioners whereas, Shri Ram

Urban Infrastructure Ltd.(SRUIL) is referred to

as   respondent   No.6   and   other   respondents   are

referred to as described in transfer petition.  

3.The genesis of dispute is PIL No. 43 of 2012

filed by petitioners in the Bombay High Court.

In PIL No.43 of 2012, petitioners have questioned

the   action   of   respondent   No.   3   in   respect   of

concessions   granted   for   development   of   various

buildings in the city of Mumbai i.e. c oncessions

3

granted   in   respect   of   development   of   various

buildings   which   consequently   enabled   the

developers   to   amass   additional   areas   under

various heads, such as refuge areas, passages,

flower   beds,   decks   etc., free   of   Floor   Space

Index (“FSI”).  The case of the respondent No.6

was specifically mentioned and challenged. It was

pleaded   that   respondent   No.6   against   the

permitted   FSI  of 54715.196   sq.   mtrs.  had   used

additional FSI of approximately  6355.58 sq. mtrs.

under the guise of various heads such as refuge

areas, passages, decks etc.  

4.The Bombay High Court  vide its judgment dated

13.05.2013 decided the PIL No.43 of 2012. In its

judgment,   the   High   Court   held   that   the   refuge

areas granted to respondent No.6 with respect to

the said building was in utter excess of norms.

Thus,   Municipal   Commissioner   was   directed   to

re­examine the issue of excess refuge area and to

4

re­issue   the   FSI.   Petitioners   filed   SLP(C)

No.20279 of 2013, challenging the judgment of the

High Court dated 13.05.2013.

5.The   respondent   No.6   had   proceeded   to

construct a 56 storey building. Respondent No.6

also   proposed   to   construct   a   public   parking

lot(PPL)   of   three   Basements   +   Lower   ground   +

Stilt + 15 Floors. Stop Work Notice was issued by

Mumbai   Municipal   Corporation   on   14.12.2011   to

respondent No.6 to desist from continuing with

construction of public parking lot. The said Stop

Work Notice was challenged by respondent No.6 in

Bombay City Civil Court by L.C. Suit No.2942 of

2011.   After   judgment   of   the   High   Court   dated

13.05.2013,   the   respondent   No.6   approached   the

Municipal   Commissioner.   The   Municipal

Commissioner passed an order on 12.09.2013. The

Municipal Commissioner in his order observed that

(i) Refuge areas would be provided free of FSI

5

only to the extent of 4 per cent  of the built up

area it served in the said building; (ii) those

areas in excess of requirements would be counted

in FSI in accordance with National Building Code,

2005. 

7.Respondent No.6, aggrieved by the order dated

12.09.2013, filed a Writ Petition (c) No.2223 of

2013 before the Bombay High Court. The order of

Civil Court dated 16.05.2013 whereby Stop Work

Notice   was   set   aside,   was   also   challenged   by

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay in the

High Court by filing a First Appeal No.884 of

2015.

8.The petitioners' SLP(C) No.20279 of 2013 was

finally heard, in which separate and dissenting

judgments   were   delivered   on   25.04.2014,   which

mandated   the   SLP   to   be   referred   to   a   larger

Bench.   The   petitioner   had   filed   another   PIL

No.133 of 2015, where certain amendments in DCR

6

were   challenged.   The   Writ   Petition   filed   by

respondent No.6 being Writ No.2223 of 2013 was

decided   on   22

nd,  

25

th

  and   27

th

  January   2016

alongwith First Appeal No.884 of 2015.

9.Municipal Commissioner was directed to hear

the respondent No.6 and to decide what should be

the reasonable refuge area in the said building.

The   order   dated   12.09.2013   was   confirmed   in

parts. The SLP(C) No.20279 of 2013 was listed on

11.03.2016 on which date, the Three Judge Bench

disposed   off   the   SLP   holding   that   in   view   of

judgment of the High Court dated 22

nd

, 25

th

  and

27

th

, January 2016 no issue is alive, however, the

liberty was granted to make a mention for recall

of the order.

10.The judgment of Bombay High Court dated 22

nd

,

25

th

  and 27

th  

January, 2016 was challenged by the

respondent   No.6   before   this   court   in   SLP(C)

No.10704­05 of 2016. This Court on 29.04.2016 has

7

issued   a   notice   in   SLP   of   respondent   No.6,

however,   no   interim   order   was   passed.   The

petitioners   also   preferred   the   SLP(C)   CC

Nos.13527­13528   of   2016,   challenging   the   above

judgment of the Bombay High Court. Petitioners

also filed IA 6 of 2016 for recalling the Three

Judge   Bench   order   dated   11.03.2016,   contending

that   several   issues   remain   alive   for

adjudication.   After   the   order   of   Bombay   High

Court   dated   22

nd

,   25

th

  and   27

th  

January,   2016,

respondent No.3 passed an order on 31.08.2016.

Respondent No.3 inter alia held that:

“(a)The   areas   provided   on   the

external peripheral face of the

flat be allowed as refuge area;

(b)The   refuge   areas   at   the

inside   of   the   building   at

entrances of flats shall not be

considered as refuge area;

(c)The four full floors shown

as refuge will not be taken as

refuge; and

(d)The   structural   columns

falling   in   the   above   decided

8

refuge areas can be allowed free

of FSI.”

11.The   order   dated   31.08.2016   passed   by

respondent No.3 was challenged by the petitioners

by filing PIL No.17 of 2017. High Court  vide its

order   dated   24.02.2017   directed   the   respondent

No.2 to file its affidavit in reply within three

weeks   and   not   to   act   upon   the   impugned   order

dated   31.08.2016   till   the   next   date.

Subsequently, matter was taken by the Bombay High

Court for hearing on 17.03.2017. After hearing

the counsel for both the parties, an order was

passed by the Bombay High Court on 17.03.2017.

Para No.4 to 7 of the order are to the following

effect:

“(4)Apparently,   the   subject

matter of the present litigation

is an order dated 31.08.2016 at

“Exhibit C” (page 58) which is

the   order   of   the   Municipal

Commissioner   of   Greater   Mumbai

in   pursuance   of   the   directions

of   this   Court   dated   27.01.2016

9

in Writ Petition (c) No. 2223 of

2013.

(5)Challenging   the   orders   in

Writ   Petition   (c)   No.2223   of

2013, both the parties i.e. the

petitioners and respondent No. 6

have   filed   Special   Leave

Petitions.   The   petitioners

before   us   have   filed   Special

Leave Petition No.13527 of 2016,

and   respondent   No.6   has   filed

Special Leave Petition Nos.10704

to 10705 of 2006. Admittedly no

interim orders are issued in the

above   SLPs   before   the   Apex

Court.   Meanwhile,   in   pursuance

of   the   directions   in   Writ

Petition   (c)   No.2223   of   2013,

the   Commissioner   has   passed   an

order dated 31.08.2016 which is

the   subject­matter   of   the

present   Public   Interest

Litigation.   Since   the   larger

issues   are   pending   before   the

Apex   Court   pertaining   to   the

very   same   alleged   illegalities

committed by respondent No.6 so

far as the property in question,

both the parties are in ad idem

with   the   submission   that   the

impugned   order   of   the

Commissioner   dated   31.08.2016

also   can   be   challenged   before

the Apex Court since that will

put   an   end   to   the   controversy

between   the   parties   once   for

all.

10

6.In that view of the matter,

the   parties   are   at   liberty   to

approach   the   Apex   Court   with

necessary   application   for

transferring the present Public

Interest   Litigation   also   to   be

tagged   alongwith   the   Special

Leave   Petitions   pending   before

the Apex Court.

7.In   order   to   enable   the

parties   to   take   appropriate

course   of   action   as   stated

above,   we   continue   the   interim

order   dated   24.02.2017   for   a

period of four weeks.”

12.In view of the order of the Bombay High Court

dated 17.03.2017, the Transfer Petition has been

filed by the petitioners in this Court. 

13.SLP(C)   Nos.11749­11750   of   2017   have   been

filed by respondent No.6, questioning the interim

order   passed   by   the   Bombay   High   Court   dated

24.02.2017 and 17.03.2017 in PIL No.17 of 2017.

14.We   have   heard   Shri   Mukul   Rohatgi,   senior

counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri

Kapil   Sibal,   senior   counsel   appearing   for

11

respondent No.6. Shri Mukul Rohatgi contends that

the judgments of the Bombay High Court dated 22

nd

,

25

th

 and 27

th

 January 2016 have been challenged by

both petitioners as well as respondent No.6 by

filing   different   SLPs,   which   are   pending   for

consideration.   Notice   has   also   been   issued   by

this Court in SLP filed by respondent No.6 on

29.04.2016   and   on   18.07.2016,   SLP(C)

Nos.13527­13528 of 2016 filed by the petitioners

have been ordered to be tagged with the SLP(C)

Nos.10704­10705   of   2016.   The   subsequent   order

passed by Municipal Commissioner dated 31.08.2016

has been passed, in consequence of the judgment

of the Bombay High Court dated 22

nd

, 25

th

 and 27

th

January 2016. The order passed by the High Court

being   already   under   challenge,   by   both   the

parties   in   this   Court,   subsequent   order   dated

31.08.2016   has   also   been   challenged   by

petitioners by filing PIL No.17 of 2017 wherein,

learned counsel for both the parties before the

12

Bombay High Court have stated that the issues,

which are raised in PIL No.17 of 2017 are the

issues, which are already engaging attention of

this Court in above mentioned two SLPs filed by

both   the   parties.   The   High   Court,   thus,   after

further hearing the parties granted liberty to

the writ petitioner to file an application for

transfer   of   PIL   No.17   of   2017   to   be   heard

alongwith pending SLP. It is submitted that all

the   issues   raised   are   issues   of   vital   public

importance, concerning with safety and security

of persons who will occupy the concerned building

and   it   is   necessary   that   issues   are   finally

decided by this Court so that correct and valid

measures   are   taken   by   respondent   No.2   to

respondent No.5 regarding construction and use of

the building which will house hundreds of people.

15.Shri Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate,  vehemently,

opposing   the   transfer   petition   contends   that

13

there is no ground to transfer the PIL No.17 of

2017 in this Court. Municipal Commissioner by an

order dated 31.08.2016 has decided all the issues

which have been questioned by the petitioners in

the High Court where all the issues can be gone

into and decided? In view of the subsequent order

of   the   Commissioner   dated   31.08.2016,   earlier

litigation   including   SLPs   filed   by   both   the

parties against the judgment of the High Court

dated 22

nd

, 25

th

 and 27

th 

January, 2016 ought not to

be required to be adjudicated on merits and it is

futile to transfer the PIL to this Court. It is

further   contended   that   in   none   of   the   Writ

Petitions filed by the petitioners or the SLPs

any interim order has been passed either by the

Bombay High Court or by this Court and it is for

the first time that on 24.02.2017 interim order

has been passed by the High Court in PIL No.17 of

2017. It   is   contended   that   the   building   is

standing for last five years to be occupied by

14

the occupants who are waiting for occupying the

flats.   Petitioners   are   under   heavy   recurring

liability   by   paying   interest   per   month   to   the

extend   of   crores   of   rupees,   which   is   causing

great hardship and prejudice to respondent No.6.

It is submitted that construction of the building

has been as per sanction plan and it is not the

case of anyone that there is any violation of

sanction plan. It is contended that the refuge

area   is   now   earmarked   adjoining   each   flats   by

respondent No.6, which has been rightly accepted

by   Municipal   Commissioner   and   the   four   floors

which were separately earmarked as refuge area

has not been upheld. It is submitted that the PIL

initiated   by   the   petitioners   is   not   bona­fide

litigation   and   in   fact   it   has   been   set   up   by

rival   builders   with   whom   respondent   No.6   has

dispute.   It   is   also   submitted   that   transfer

petition deserved to be rejected and the SLP(C)

Nos.11749­11750 of 2017 be allowed, setting aside

15

the interim order passed by the High Court dated

24.02.2017 as extended on 17.03.2017 in PIL No.17

of 2017.

16.We have considered the submissions of both

the   parties   and   perused   the   record.   The   order

passed   by   the   Municipal   Commissioner   dated

12.09.2013, in pursuance of order passed by the

Bombay High Court on 13.05.2013 in PIL No.43 of

2012 was challenged by respondent No.6 in Writ

Petition(C)   No.2223   of   2013   before   the   Bombay

High Court. The order of the High Court dated

13.05.2013   passed   in   PIL   No.43   of   2013   was

already challenged by the Petitioners by SLP(C)

No.20279 of 2013. The Writ Petition(C) No.2223 of

2013 filed by respondent No.6 was decided by the

Bombay   High   Court   on   27.01.2016,   which   was

challenged   by   both   petitioners   and   respondent

No.6 by means of SLPs, as noted above. After the

order   dated   27.01.2016,   Municipal   Commissioner

16

proceeded to pass an order dated 31.08.2016. The

Municipal   Commissioner   after   re­examining   the

issue regarding refuge area held, as follows:

“1.Periphery   refuge   area

surrounding   each   flat   on   each

floor(4 flats in number on each

floor) was allowed.

[Note:   The   total   refuge   area

allowed   by   the   Commissioner

surrounding   the   flats   on   each

floor   amounts   to   60%   of   the

habitable area on the respective

floor]

2.4 entire refuge floors were to

be blocked.

3.National   Building   Code   2005

would   not   apply   since   the

building   is   already   constructed

as   per   past   approved   plans

(contrary to the Judgment dated

27.01.2016).”

17.The   order   dated   31.08.2016   has   been

challenged by petitioners by filing PIL No.17 of

2017 in which Bombay High Court passed an order

on 24.02.2017 and 17.03.2017, as noted above. The

order of Commissioner dated 31.08.2016 has been

17

passed   in   pursuance   and   consequence   of   the

judgment   of   the   High   Court   dated   27.01.2016.

Judgment dated 27.01.2016 is now challenged in

this Court by SLP filed by both the parties. In

SLP   filed   by   respondent   No.6   notice   has   been

issued by this Court and the SLP filed by the

Petitioners has been  tagged with other SLP.

18.The   important   issues,   pertaining   to   refuge

area,   FSI   are   engaging   the   attention   of   this

Court.   Provisions   of   the   Development   Control

Regulations for  Greater Mumbai, 1991   are under

consideration.   The   developments   carried   out   by

builders in buildings, which is to house hundreds

of   people   are   not   question   of   rights   of

developers alone. The development regulations and

various other statutory rules enjoin performance

of   various   statutory   duties   and   statutory

obligations   in   respect   to   development   of

buildings,   which   are   to   house   hundreds   of

18

occupants. The life and safety of occupants is a

matter of public importance and the issues raised

relate to public concern & safety which need to

be decided at the earliest.

19.The   concern   expressed   by   Shri   Kapil   Sibal

that   due   to   delay   caused   in   finalizing   the

issues, respondent No.6 has been suffering huge

loss, is also a matter of concern. Early decision

of such disputes is in the interest of both the

public in general as well as the persons who have

carried   out   development   after   incurring   huge

expenditure.

20.It is relevant to note that the Bombay High

Court   in   Paras   4   to   7   of   the   Order   dated

17.03.2017, noticing the facts that issues raised

in   PIL   No.17   of   2017   are   already   pending

consideration in this Court as mentioned in Para

5 has granted liberty to the petitioners to move

an application to file a transfer petition. 

19

21.After   having   considered   the   submissions   of

the   parties   and   perusing   the   material   brought

before   us,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   issues

which   have   been   raised   in   the   SLP(C)   CC

Nos.13527­13528 of 2016 filed by the petitioners

and   SLP(C)   Nos.10704­10705   of   2016   filed   by

respondent No.6 have bearing on the PIL No.17 of

2017 and it is in the interest of all the parties

that   such   issues   be   decided   finally,   when   the

issues   have   already   been   entertained   by   this

Court, as noted above.

22.Learned counsel for both the parties although

have raised various submissions touching on the

merits of issue but at this stage when we are

considering only the petition for transfer of PIL

No.17 of 2017 as well as the challenge to only

interim orders passed by Bombay High Court in PIL

No.17 of 2017, we refrain to express any opinion

on various aspects relating merits of the case.

20

The observations made by us in this order are

limited for deciding the transfer petition and

SLPs before us, such observations may not have

any bearing on the issues when they are finally

heard and decided.

23.It   is  further  relevant   to  notice   that  the

SLP(C)   No.20279   of   2013,   which   was   filed   by

petitioner against the order dated 13.05.2013 of

the Bombay High Court in PIL No.43 of 2012, which

was   disposed   of   by   Three   Judge   Bench   on

13.05.2013, an application on I.A.6 has also been

filed by the petitioners to recall the order and

determine   the   issues.   No   order   has   yet   been

passed   in   I.A.6   of   2016,   which   application  is

waiting for consideration  by Three Judge Bench.

24.In   view   of   forgoing   discussion,   SLP(C)

Nos.10704­10705 of 2016 filed against order dated

27.01.2016 being pending consideration, ends of

justice   be   served   in   allowing   the   transfer

21

petition transferring the PIL No.17 of 2017 from

Bombay   High   Court   to   this   Court   to   be   heard

alongwith   SLP(C)   Nos.10704­10705   of   2016   and

SLP(C) CC Nos. 13527­13528 of 2016. The transfer

petition is thus allowed.

25.Coming to SLP(C) Nos.11749­11750 of 2017, in

which   interim   order   dated   24.02.2017   and

17.03.2017 have been passed by the Bombay High

Court, in view of the order passed in Transfer

Petition(C) No.567 of 2017, the PIL No.17 of 2017

is being transferred to this Court. As on the

date we do not see any good ground to set aside

the aforesaid interim orders, however, PIL No.17

of 2017 having been transferred to be heard by

this Court, it is open for the parties to pray

for   alteration/modification/variation   of   the

aforesaid interim orders before this Court. The

SLP(C)   Nos.11749­11750   of   2017   are   dismissed

subject to above observations.

22

26.In result, Transfer Petition is allowed and

the SLPs are dismissed subject to observations as

made above.

........................J.

(A. K. SIKRI )

........................J.

(ASHOK BHUSHAN)

NEW DELHI;

JULY 31, 2017.

23

ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.7 SECTION XVI -A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No. 567/2017

JANHIT MANCH & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

SLP(C) Nos. 11749-11750/2017

(IA 1/2017 - FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT)

Date : 31-07-2017

These matters were called on for pronouncement of

judgment today.

For Parties

Mr. R. P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv.

Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv.

Mr. Anand Sukumaran, Adv.

Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv.

Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR

Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR

M/s. Karanjawala & Co., AOR

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan pronounced the

judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K.

Sikri and His Lordship.

The transfer petition is allowed and the special leave

petitions are dismissed in terms of the signed reportable

judgment.

(NIDHI AHUJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.]