Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1594120/2007 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15941 of 2007
=========================================
MANISH
R. TRIVEDI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DEV-ARC
(JODHPUR) COMMERCIAL CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR
TATTVAM K PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1,
None
for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2.
MR ADIL R MIRZA for Respondent(s) :
3,
MR RR MARSHALL for Respondent(s) : 4,
MS REETA CHANDARANA,
AGP for Respondent(s) : 5,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 12/11/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN)
This
public interest litigation has been filed seeking declaration that
the plans for construction of Dev Arc Complex placed by respondent
Nos.1 & 2 and sanctioned by the AUDA vide Annexure A and the
building use permission granted by AUDA are illegal, void and
against public policy. Other consequential reliefs have also been
prayed for.
Petitioner
who is an ex-councilor of the Nagarpalika has approached this Court
with the above prayers pointing out various violations allegedly
committed in the construction carried out by the 2nd
respondent. It is stated in the petition that there is
irregularity in amalgamation of plots. Further, it is also stated
that there is illegality in sanctioning the building as low-rise
building, so also in according sanction in the built-up area, floor
space index, etc.
This
Court issued notice only to 3rd respondent, and no notice
was issued to other respondents and consequently, there is no
appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2.
A
detailed affidavit has been filed by the Senior Town Planner of AUDA
on 4th February 2008. It is stated therein that at the
time of filing the writ petition, major portion of construction of
the building was over. Over and above, a second affidavit has been
filed by the third respondent on 15th September 2008 which
has dealt with in detail each and every alleged violation pointed by
the petitioner in the petition. It is unnecessary to reiterate what
has been stated by AUDA in both the affidavits. Major stress raised
by this Court, as stated by the learned counsel for AUDA, was that
that there is no proper fire safety device, which has been dealt with
in the affidavit filed by AUDA.
With
regard to the contention of amalgamation of plots, it has been stated
in para 2 of the counter affidavit that the whole plot is an
amalgamated plot of 3 final plots and the whole plot is having road
facing 3 sides and all roads are TP roads, and in addition, the
plot is as per the permissible limits as per regulation 10.1.3 of
the building regulations. Further, it is also stated that the
building B is a low rise building and as per the definition of
low-rise building in the GDCR, the construction permitted is ground +
4 floors and no extra floors are constructed nor extra FSI is
granted and nor additional built up area has been permitted.
Further, reference was made to regulation 29.2(d) of the GDCR by
which it is provided that alteration in height can be permitted
under extra-ordinary circumstances, if any hardship is caused to the
public at large. It has been pointed out that in the instant case,
there is an auditorium on the 3rd floor of the building
and therefore, the hight of the building has been permitted to be
raised to 23.7 meters and therefore inspite of the height of the
building being more than 16.5 meters, it is stated that it cannot
be said that the building is a high rise building as the
construction permitted in the building is as per the regulations.
From
the affidavits filed by the Senior Town Planner, it is revealed that
even if there is some minor violations, those violations cannot be
characterized as major violations so as to direct demolition of the
building which has already been constructed and shops have been
allotted.
Under
the circumstances, we find no reason to entertain this public
interest litigation. The same is therefore dismissed. Notice is
discharged.
(K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,
C.J.)
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
(vjn)
Top