words per minute
37
VedPrakash3082
00:00
Speed
On 19/03/2020, respondent No.2 addressed a letter to respondent No.6 stating that it had examined the proposal of the petitioners submitted to it by respondent NO.6, but was unable to consider the same due to the security scenario reported by security agencies due to construction of high-rise buildings close to Defence Public Sector Undertakings, as stated in the letters dated 23/02/2018 and 14/02/2020.
In the month of September, 2021, the petitioners amended the writ petition (pursuant to order dated 31/108/2021) and challenged the Notification dated 28/07/1987, the Guidelines dated 18/05/2011, 18/03/2015, 17/11/2015 and 21/10/2016 and Letter dated 17/02/2020 and the Internal Noting dated 09/08/2017.
Mr. Samdani, learned senior counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to various exhibits annexed to the petition, various averments made by his clients in the petition, the averments made by the respondents in various affidavits and tendered a copy of the compilation of judgments. He also tendered copies of the relevant provisions of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, Work of Defence Act, 1903, Google Map, Home Department (Special) Order dated 29/08/1986 and Gazette Notification and Fax Message dated wp 113-19. Doc 17/11/2016 sent by Dinesh K. Tripathi.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Section 46 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (For short “MRTP Act”) and submitted that the said provisions does not put any restriction under the Development Control Regulations (For short “DCR”) or under the Development Plan (For short “DP”) of the nature sought to be imposed by the impugned communication. The impugned notice and the impugned stop work notice are without authority of law and dehors the DP and the MRTP Act. The Municipal Corporation did not impose a condition on the petitioners to obtain the NOC from respondent No.6 nor did it reject or impose conditions on development permission on the basis of proposed revision in policy.
It is submitted by learned senior counsel that the tenants of the building in existence, prior to the demolition of the said building, have already vacated. The said building was thereafter demolished. The petitioners have acted upon the conditions in various permissions and received thereafter commenced construction. The construction has already been carried out upto 10th floor. The notice to stop work had been issued by respondent No.2 at the instance of respondent No.6 due to security issue. He submitted that respondent No.6 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The majority shareholding of respondent NO.6 is held by the Government of India.