GREATER KAILASH PART-II WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS. versus DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 648 · Decided: 15-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GREATERKAILASH PART-II WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
,.\ 
v. 
DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. AND ORS. 
MAY 15,2007 
B 
[C.K. THAKKERANDALTAMASKABIR,JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
.,
.. 
Article 226-Writ jurisdiction-Existing cinema hall renovated as 
_,..._ 
c cinema hall-cum-commerical complex after obtaining all requisite approval 
and clearances from municipal authorities and after approval of sanction 
plan-Welfare Association of residents of colony situated near cinema plot 
filing writ petition seeking quashing of the building plans on the ground of 
apprehension of traffic. congestion and inconvenience and hardship to 
D residents on account of renovated complex-Interference-Held, sanction 
granted strictly in accordance with Rules and Building Bye-Laws-Clearance 
ulso obtained from DCP (Traffic) on the specific problem apprehended by 
petitioners-Owner of plot entitled to use and utilize the same for any lawful 
,. 
purpose and to erect construction in accordance with existing rules-No 
deviation from the building plan as sanctioned alleged-Authorities 
-( 
,_ 
E considering parking space set apart in the renovated complex to be sufficient 
to meet the requirements so as not to cause any problem of traffic congestion 
as apprehended-In the facts, held, no interference under writ jurisdiction 
called for-Delhi Master Plan, 1990-Building Bye Laws, 1983-Delhi 
Cinematograph Rules, 2002-Delhi Urban Art Commission Act, 1973-Section 
F 
11-Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957-Section 12. 
The Savitri Cinema Hall owned by respondent No. 1 had been operating 
"' 
on the Plot situated at the T-junction of Outer Ring Road and the main entry 
~ 
point to the colonies of Greater Kailash Part-II, Alaknanda Complex, 
Mandakini Enclave and Chittaranjan Park for about 30 years. The cinema 
G hall was closed in 1997 and subsequently, a decision was taken by the 
respondent No. 1 to convert the Savitri Cinema Hall into a smaller capacity 
.... 
mini cinema hall with modern features and facilities. The respondent No.I 
submitted its alteration/renovation plans to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi 
(MCD) for requisite sanction and as required by the MCD, the respondent 
/( 
, 
H 
648 
.. 
GREATER KAI LASH PART ·11 WELFARE ASSOCIATION >. DLF UM\'ERSAL LTD 
649 
... • 
No.I duly obtained approval from Delhi Urban Arts Commissions, No A 
Objection Certificate from the office of DCP Traffic Delhi, No Objection 
Certificate from Delhi Fire Service, No Objection Certificate from BSES 
Rajdhani Power Ltd., Provisional Clearance Certificate from the office of DCP 
Licensing (Cinema) Delhi. On the basis of the said clearances and being 
satisfied that the Building Plans were in consonance with the Building Bye 
Laws 1983, Master Plan 2001 and Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 2002, the B 
MCD accorded sanction to the said plains. Tke respondent No. 1 completed 
renovation ofSavitri Cinema as per the sanction granted by MCD and applied 
~ 
for Completion Certificate. 
... _ 
The appellants-Greater Kailash Part-II Welfare Association and its c 
office-bearers at this stage filed four Writ Petitions in the Delhi High Court 
complaining of change of user of the Savitri Cinema Plot by converting it 
into a multiplex-cum-commercial complex and seeking quashing of sanction 
of building plans and also clearances and sanctions granted alleging that the 
respondent No. 1 was converting the single screen cinema hall into a mutiplex-
cum-commercial complex with four cinema haUs which would result in a much D 
larger number of visitors to the complex, which, in turn, would cause serious 
""f 
traffic problems and congestion causing great hardship to the inhabitants of 
the colonies around the Savitri Cinema Plot and that the construction of the 
....,._ 
mutiplex-cum-commerical complex was also in violation of the Master Plan 
of Delhi, the Building Bye-laws and Cinematograph Act, 1952. Respondent 
E 
No. 1 filed counter affidavit stating that the writ petitions were misconceived 
as the respondent No. 1 had decided to convert the existing Savitri Cinema 
Hall, which had provision for 1000 seats, into a single screen mini cinema 
hall with only 300 seats after obtaining sanction from the Municipal 
authorities which would lead to a substantial reduction in the number of seats 
in the cinema hall and which would also reduce the number of visitors to the F 
,, 
cinema complex. 
.>-
Single Judge holding that the Delhi Master Plan did not lay down the 
parking st

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.