Supreme Court Transfers PIL on Building Concessions: Janhit Manch vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

Introduction

Can a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) be transferred to the Supreme Court when related matters are already under consideration? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving building concessions in Mumbai. This case highlights the complexities of urban development and the judiciary’s role in ensuring public safety. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, decided to transfer a PIL to itself.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan. Justice Ashok Bhushan authored the judgment.

Case Background

The case began with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the Bombay High Court by Janhit Manch. The petitioners questioned the concessions granted for building developments in Mumbai. They specifically challenged the additional Floor Space Index (FSI) used by Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. (SRUIL), the respondent No. 6. SRUIL allegedly used extra FSI under the guise of refuge areas, passages, and decks.

The Bombay High Court, on May 13, 2013, ruled that the refuge areas granted to SRUIL were excessive. It directed the Municipal Commissioner to re-examine the issue and re-issue the FSI. The petitioners then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court challenging this judgment.

Meanwhile, SRUIL had started constructing a 56-story building and proposed a public parking lot. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation issued a Stop Work Notice on December 14, 2011, for the parking lot. SRUIL challenged this notice in the Bombay City Civil Court. After the High Court’s judgment, SRUIL approached the Municipal Commissioner, who ordered on September 12, 2013, that refuge areas would be free of FSI only up to 4% of the built-up area.

Aggrieved by the Municipal Commissioner’s order, SRUIL filed a Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court. The Municipal Corporation also challenged the Civil Court’s order setting aside the Stop Work Notice. The petitioners’ SLP was referred to a larger bench, and they filed another PIL challenging amendments in the Development Control Regulations (DCR). The High Court decided SRUIL’s Writ Petition and the Municipal Corporation’s appeal on January 22, 25, and 27, 2016.

The Municipal Commissioner was directed to determine the reasonable refuge area. The Supreme Court disposed of the petitioners’ SLP, stating no issue was alive due to the High Court’s judgment, but allowed liberty to mention for recall of the order. Both parties challenged the High Court’s judgment in the Supreme Court. The petitioners also sought a recall of the Supreme Court’s order. The Municipal Commissioner then passed an order on August 31, 2016, regarding refuge areas.

The petitioners challenged the August 31, 2016 order by filing another PIL. The Bombay High Court directed the respondent to file an affidavit and not act on the order. The High Court then noted that the issues were pending before the Supreme Court and allowed the parties to approach the Supreme Court to transfer the PIL.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Bombay High Court initially directed the Municipal Commissioner to re-examine the refuge area issue. The Municipal Commissioner’s subsequent order was challenged by SRUIL in a writ petition. The High Court’s decision was appealed by both parties in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court initially disposed of the matter, but later an application was filed to recall the order.

The Municipal Commissioner passed another order which was challenged in a fresh PIL. The Bombay High Court then allowed the parties to approach the Supreme Court for transfer of the PIL, considering that the main issues were already under consideration in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991. These regulations govern the construction and development of buildings in Mumbai, including aspects like Floor Space Index (FSI) and refuge areas. The core issue revolves around how refuge areas are calculated and whether they should be included in the FSI.

The National Building Code, 2005 was also referred to by the Municipal Commissioner in its order dated 12.09.2013.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners, Janhit Manch, argued that the issues raised in PIL No. 17 of 2017 were already under consideration by the Supreme Court in the SLPs filed by both parties.
• They contended that the Municipal Commissioner’s order dated 31.08.2016 was a consequence of the Bombay High Court’s judgment, which was already under challenge in the Supreme Court.
• The petitioners emphasized that the issues were of vital public importance, concerning the safety and security of people who would occupy the building.
• They submitted that the issues needed to be decided by the Supreme Court to ensure correct and valid measures regarding the construction and use of the building.

Respondent No. 6’s Arguments:

• Shri Kapil Sibal, representing respondent No. 6 (SRUIL), opposed the transfer petition.
• He argued that the Municipal Commissioner’s order dated 31.08.2016 had resolved all the issues raised by the petitioners.
• He contended that the earlier litigation, including the SLPs, should not be adjudicated on merits due to the subsequent order of the Commissioner.
• He submitted that no interim order had been passed in any of the previous petitions or SLPs, except in PIL No. 17 of 2017.
• He argued that the building had been standing for five years and occupants were waiting to occupy the flats.
• He stated that SRUIL was incurring heavy losses due to the delay.
• He contended that the construction was as per the sanctioned plan and that the refuge areas were now earmarked adjoining each flat.
• He also argued that the PIL was not a bona fide litigation and was set up by rival builders.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in this judgment, as the primary focus was on whether to transfer the PIL. However, the core issue was whether the PIL No. 17 of 2017 should be transferred to the Supreme Court to be heard along with the pending SLPs.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not specifically mention any case laws or books. However, it does refer to the following:

• Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991: These regulations were under consideration for the issues relating to FSI and refuge areas.
• National Building Code, 2005: The Municipal Commissioner referred to this code in his order dated 12.09.2013.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition, bringing PIL No. 17 of 2017 from the Bombay High Court to the Supreme Court. The Court reasoned that the issues raised in the PIL were directly related to the issues already under consideration in the pending Special Leave Petitions (SLPs).

The Court also dismissed the SLPs filed by respondent No. 6, which challenged the interim orders of the Bombay High Court. The Court observed that since the PIL itself was being transferred, it would be open to the parties to seek modification of the interim orders before the Supreme Court.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991: The court acknowledged the importance of these regulations in determining the issues related to FSI and refuge areas.
• National Building Code, 2005: The court noted the reference to this code by the Municipal Commissioner but did not make a specific finding on its applicability.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to transfer the PIL was primarily influenced by the fact that the issues raised in the PIL were directly related to the issues already pending before the court in the SLPs. The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive resolution of all related issues to ensure public safety and proper implementation of building regulations. The court also acknowledged the need to balance the public interest with the concerns of the developers.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principle that related cases should be heard together for a comprehensive resolution. The court also considered the factual context of the case, including the various orders passed by the Municipal Commissioner and the High Court, but the legal aspects weighed more in the decision.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of consolidating related cases to ensure a comprehensive and consistent resolution.
• This case highlights the judiciary’s role in overseeing urban development and ensuring compliance with building regulations.
• The transfer of the PIL to the Supreme Court indicates the court’s concern for public safety and proper implementation of building regulations.
• The decision also acknowledges the need to balance public interest with the concerns of developers.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that PIL No. 17 of 2017 be transferred from the Bombay High Court to the Supreme Court to be heard along with SLP(C) Nos. 10704-10705 of 2016 and SLP(C) CC Nos. 13527-13528 of 2016.

The court also stated that it was open for the parties to pray for alteration/modification/variation of the interim orders passed by the Bombay High Court before the Supreme Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when multiple cases involving similar or interconnected issues are pending before different courts, it is appropriate to transfer the cases to a single court for a comprehensive resolution. This ensures consistency in judgments and avoids conflicting decisions. This case does not change any previous positions of law but reinforces the principle of judicial economy and the need for a holistic approach to resolving complex legal disputes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to transfer the PIL from the Bombay High Court to itself reflects the court’s commitment to ensuring that all related issues are addressed comprehensively. By consolidating the cases, the Supreme Court aims to provide a clear and consistent resolution, balancing the interests of public safety and urban development. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in overseeing complex urban development projects and ensuring compliance with building regulations.