Bombay HC Upholds Altamount Road Building Redevelopment, Dismisses 2013 PIL

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday upheld the permissions granted for a 16-storey redevelopment of a cessed tenanted 1940 structure on Altamount Road and dismissed a public interest litigation of 2013 against it.
Bombay HC Upholds Altamount Road Building Redevelopment, Dismisses 2013 PIL

Mumbai, April 10: The PIL, filed by Altamount Road Area Citizens Committee, claimed the permissions were illegal and arbitrary, setting a "wrong and dangerous precedent."

Court's Observations

Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad observed:

  • "A petition filed in the garb of public interest litigation cannot be entertained where no material facts constituting a cause in the larger public interest was disclosed."

  • "There is no genuine public interest involved."

  • Under the mask of a PIL, it intended to stall the construction.

Background

  • Original building: 'Lincoln House' (existed since September 1, 1940)

  • Type: Cessed structure

  • Redevelopment permission granted: 2002

  • Initial commencement certificate: November 2002

  • Building completed: 2023

Petitioners' Arguments

Senior counsel Darius Shroff argued that permissions and concessions granted to the builder "seriously hampered the basic requirements for good life and affected the guarantee of right to life under Article 21," citing lack of sufficient escape route in case of fire, among other alleged lacunae.

State and Builder's Response

  • Senior counsel Milind Sathe (now AG) argued the PIL was based on incomplete and erroneous assumptions

  • Senior counsel Ashish Kamath (for builder Krishna and Company) submitted that the PIL made "misleading statements in the petition so as to create a picture as if they are espousing a public cause"

  • The HC agreed that building permissions followed DCR for minimum open space and other provisions

HC's Ruling

The court noted that the scope of judicial review in a PIL is "very limited" and that the writ court cannot interfere with the decision of the executives so long as a reasonable procedure is adopted and followed.

"This is not the object behind entertaining a public interest litigation that the complaint of a private nature with personal interest or political motivation are encouraged," the HC noted, dismissing the PIL and vacating an interim order of 2018.