LexOSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD. versus HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2013] 17 S.C.R. 447
OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD.
v.
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND
OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No.10933 of 2013)
DECEMBER 10, 2013
[G.S. SINGHVI, H.L. GOKHALE AND
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.]
A
B
Town Planning -
Maharashtra Regional and Town
C
Planning Act, 1966 - s. 37(1 AA) - Development Control
Regulations (OCR) for Greater Mumbai, 1991 - OCR
57(4)(c), 16 and 64 - Change of land user- Conversion from
industrial zone to residential/commercial zone - Proposed
construction of residential-cum-commercial complex of D
appellant in the vicinity of the Refinery run by respondent no. 1
- Objections to the construction, from point of view of the
safety and security of the refinery, and of the would-be
occupants of the housing complex, as well as their health -
High Court allowed writ petition filed by respondent no.1 and
E
quashed sanction accorded by the competent authority of the
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for change of user
and construction of residential and commercial complex and
directed the Municipal Commissioner to reconsider the
application of appellant keeping in view the objections raised
by the Police Department, Ministry of Petroleum, Ministry of
F
Environment and Intelligence Bureau and the Security Control
Regulations - Propriety - Held (per majority): Proper -
Respondent no. 1 could not be faulted for constructions
permitted by respondent no.2-Municipal Corporation - Merely
because some constructions were permitted at some distance
G
from the refinery of respondent no. 1, does not justify further
high-rise constructions in the vicinity - Two wrongs do not
make one right - Respondent no. 1 lodged their objections,
447
H
448
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.
A and Municipal Authorities were required to consider the same
but they did not - Public interest cannot be sacrificed at the
altar of commercial interests - Security threat clearly placed
on record, as also the possible danger to the health of the
occupants of the buildings already constructed and to be
B constructed as well - No fault found with the judgment of High
Court.
Dispute arose with respect to the proposed
construction of the residential-cum-commercial complex
of the appellant in the vicinity of the Refinery run by the
C first respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
('HPCL'). The area in question was earlier designated as
a Special Industrial Zone, and commercial-cum-residential
activities were not permitted therein. However,
subsequently, the appellant had been permitted the
D change of user (conversion from industrial zone to
residential/commercial zone) by the Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by
E respondent No.1-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
(HPCL) and quashed the sanction accorded by the
competent authority of the Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai for change of user and construction of
residential and commercial complex and directed the
F Municipal Commissioner to reconsider the application
made by the appellant keeping in view the objections
raised by the Police Department, Ministry of Petroleum,
Ministry of Environment and Intelligence Bureau and the
Security Control Regulations issued by the State of
Maharashtra under Section 37 (1AA) of the Maharashtra
G Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Hence the
present appeal.
The principal submission on behalf of the appellant
was that they had been granted the change of user
H (conversion from industrial zone to residential/
OSWAL AGRO MILLS LTD. v. HINDUSTAN
449
PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
commercial zone) by the Municipal Corporation of Gredter
A
Mumbai, under its permission, and since this permission
was as per OCR 57(4)(c) of the Development Control
Regulations (OCR) for Greater Mumbai, 1991 framed
under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
1966 which allowed such a change of user with the
B
previous approval of the Municipal Commissioner, it
should not be interfered with. The change of user was
defended by the Municipal Corporation also.
The first respondent, on the other hand, raised two-
fold contentions viz. that from the point of view of the
C
safety and security of the refinery, and of the occupants
who will be residing in this housing complex, as well as
their health, this development ought not to be permitted.
It was their submission that such a construction would
be contraExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.