AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Mr. M.Y. Eqbal, Chief Justice and T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—This pro bono publico has been filed by the petitioner to restrain the 4th
respondent from putting up unauthorised construction of multi-storied building at No.153/156, Peters Road, Chenani - 600 006 pursuant to the
illegal planning permission accorded by the 2nd respondent.
It is stated that the 4th respondent is putting up a multi-storied residential apartment consisting of 17 floors in the above stated address, after
obtaining planning permission from the 2nd respondent - CMDA. It is stated that the planning permission was granted for the construction of
residential apartment covering 22.68% of the total plot extent, which comes to 50,710 sq. ft. The 4th respondent was accorded permission to avail
from and out of the total extent of 50,710 sq.ft. 17 residential floors in the backdrop of 3.38 FSI. As per the Development Control Rules the FSI
permissible for a multi-storied building is 1.5 or 1.75 or 2.50, if the maximum coverage is upto 30%. If the maximum coverage is between 30%
and 40%, the FSI shall be at 2.25, and if the maximum coverage is above 40% and below 50%, then the permissible FSI shall be at 2. Even for
constructions of I.T. Parks the FSI shall be at 3. But, in the instant case, for the 4th respondent''s residential construction 3.38 FSI is accorded by
the 2nd respondent, which is ex-facie illegal. This will ultimately result in floor violations, which is contrary to law. Such kind of FSI violations and
floor violations, will ultimately result in unlawful constructions, and tend to commit unauthorised encroachments not only in the space area but also
in the ground level plinth area, which are hazardous to the occupants. It is stated that the petitioner came to know that the 2nd respondent
accorded exemption of O.S.R. to the 4th respondent''s construction by collecting compounding charges, which is bad in the eye of law. Such
exemption from O.S.R. or sparing of O.S.R. by collecting compounding charges can be justified for areas beneath one lakh square feet and that
too only for constructions falling in line with the parameters of constructions with reference to new development control rules but not to an
anomalous construction such as the present one. Therefore, the petitioner has moved the present writ petition to restrain the 4th respondent from
continuing its unauthorised construction at the above stated site.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
Time and again, the Supreme Court, as also this Court, has observed that public interest litigation is only intended to promote and vindicate
public interest which demands that violations of constitutional or legal rights of large numbers of people who are poor, ignorant or in a socially or
economically disadvantaged position should not go unnoticed and unredressed. It has also been held that public interest litigation is to be used as
an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens as this jurisdiction is meant for the purpose of coming to the
rescue of the downtrodden and not for the purpose of serving private ends. The Supreme Court has held that while exercising the jurisdiction, the
court must see that very large section of the society, because of extreme poverty, ignorance, discrimination and illiteracy, had been denied justice
for time immemorial and in fact, they have no access to justice - vide Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others, R and M
Trust Vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and Others, ], State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Others, , People''s Union
for Democratic Rights and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and Pugalenthi vs. State of Tamil Nadu [W.P. No.4233 of 2012 dated
2.3.2012].
In the light of the aforesaid judgments, we are of the firm opinion that this writ petition cannot be entertained as a public interest litigation as no
real public interest is shown to have been affected in this case. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty is approach the authorities concerned by filing a representation as to the illegality which is being committed by
the fourth respondent and if such representation is filed, the respondents concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.