PRATIBHA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 745 · Decided: 09-05-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-j. 
PRATIBHA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 
AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
MAY 9, 1991 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act-Housing Society-Viola-
tion of building laws-Rule 51 violation-Demolition ordered-
Whether valid. 
A 
B 
The appellant Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. made some unau-
C 
thorised constructions in a 36 storeyed building. The Bombay Munici-
pal Corporation issued a show catise notice calling upon the society to 
show cause as to why the upper eight floors of the building should not be 
'liemolished so as to limit the development to the permissible Floor 
Space Index (F .S.I.) since the additional Floor Space Index to the extent O 
of 2773 sq. mts. was gained by the appellant. The appellants submitted 
a reply to the show-cause notice. The Administrator of the Municipal 
Corporation made an order on 21st September, 1984 requiriag the 
appellant to demolish 24,000 sq. ft. on the eight upper floors of the 
building on the basis of 3000 sq. ft. on each floor. The Administrator as 
well as the State Government dismissed the representation and appeal 
E 
by the appellant. So the appellant ftled a writ petition in the High Court 
which was also dismissed with the observation that the appellant be 
given a choice to reduce the construction upto permissible limit by any 
alternative proposal within the four corners of the rules and regulations 
within one month from 28th October 1985 the Municipality may 
consider. 
The appellant made application to the Municipal Corporation 
giving several alternative p,roposals on 21st November 1985. But it also 
preferred a special leave petition before this court against the High 
Court Judgment. The special leave petition was dismissed on January 
F 
17, 1986. The appellants alleged that they submitted another proposal to G 
the Municipal Corporation on 17th February, 1986 and a meeting for 
hearing alternative proposals was fixed up by the Municipal Commis-
sioner and put forward its case in support of the new proposals and the 
Municipal Commissioner said he would consider the proposals and take 
decision. On 27th December 1988 the appellant w·rote a letter to the 
Municipal Commissioner to consider the alternative proposals i.e. of H 
745 
746 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
vertical demolition of the building instead of demolishing the eight 
upper fioors. In January, 1989 the officers of the corporation agreed 
that demolition can be made vertically so as to bring the entire con-
. struction within the permissible Floor Space Index where as the work of 
demolition of upper eight fioors of the building were entrusted to a 
B company by the Municipal Commissitiner. So the appellant again filed a 
writ in the High Court. It was dismissed by the Single Jndge as well as 
by the Division Bench dated Sth March, 1990. 
The appellants came by Special Leave Petition in this Court; The 
main grievance of the appellant being that vertical demolition proposal 
was not considered. lnspite of orders of this Court in this regard to the 
C Mnnicipal Corporation no agreeable solution could fructify. The pro-
posal was examined by the Municipal Commissioner but rejected on 
13th November, 1990 and submitted the detailed report to this Court. 
D 
Dismissing the petition the Court 
HELD: The appellant bad made illegal constructions in violation 
of Floor Space Index to the extent of more than 24000 sq. ft. The 
decision taken by the Municipal Commissioner does not suffer from any 
want of jurisdiction nor is violative of any law or rules. It is well settled 
that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not an 
E 
appellate Court on the administrative decision taken by the authorities. 
Since the tendency of raising unlawful constructions and unauthorised 
encroachments is increasing in the entire country and such activities are 
required to be dealt with by ill'm bands. Such unlawful constructions 
are against public interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and 
residents of the multistoreyed buildings. [749F, 7SOB, E·F] 
F 
This case should be a pointer to all the builders that making of 
unauthorised construction never pays and is against the interest of the 
society at large. The rules, regulations and by laws are made by the cor· 
porations or development authorities taking in view the larger public 
interest of the society and it is the bounden duty of the citizens to obey 
G 
and follo

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