The Bombay high court observed on Thursday that it cannot monitor and direct demolition of all buildings that have illegally come up in Mumbai, while hearing a public interest litigation challenging a 32-storey building in Malabar Hill.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

The building was developed by One Lay Exports (Pvt) Limited which is owned by diamond merchant Bharat Shah.

The division bench of Justice PB Majmudar and Justice Amjad Sayed was hearing a public interest litigation filed by social activist Simpreet Singh alleging 24 violations.  The judges dismissed a PIL filed by Singh against the building coming up next to actor Shah Rukh Khan’s bungalow last week and imposed a fine of Rs20,000. “Why are you filing PIL on plots? Why not on drinking water problems?” asked Justice Majmudar.

Singh’s advocates Amit Mehta and Kiran Bhalerao said their client is a national awardee of Right to Information and has exposed scams like Adarsh and Lavasa.  “We can’t go on monitoring and demolishing each and every building.  Show us that there is political interference and we’ll immediately demolish it,” said Justice Majmudar. 

Singh’s advocates argued that the building has violated Development Control Regulations and Coastal Regulation Zone norms and is near Banganga tank. According to the PIL, the building has come up on land which was reserved for a municipal retail market and a parking lot for pilgrims visiting Banganga.Developer’s counsel, Aspi Chenoy opposed the petition saying the BMC had granted commencement certificate in 2001and the building was completed in 2007. “The petition was filed in 2008 after all the flats were sold,” he said. The judges concurred with him.  “If you (Singh) would have come before starting of construction or somewhere in the middle, we could have done something,’ said Justice Majmudar. Mehta replied that the delay was due to problems in acquiring documents under the Right to Information Act.

The judges asked Singh to pay Rs50,000 to prove his bonafide to which Mehta replied that his client could not afford to pay.  The judges said in case the PIL is dismissed it will be with cost.