 |
|
||
 |
|||
| Improve Your World | Home | About Us | Sitemap | Search | Contact Us | ||
|
|
||||||||
| Please help us in making this a comprehensive resource section for those directly connected or affected by this issue e.g. citizens, NGOs, government officers, students, teachers, researchers. Please directly upload or email us relevant content. This can include lists, articles, photographs, research papers, links to websites, etc. Please volunteer as an expert panelist to whom we can direct queries from our website visitors. |
| Home >> Public Interest Litigation >> Newspaper Articles |   Email this Page |
|
|||
|
PIl against state plan to increase FSI in suburbs
Mumbai: The state government’s decision to increase he Floor Space Index (FSI) in the suburbs from 1 to 1.33 has been challenged in a public interest litigation (PIL) before the Bombay high court.
The petitioners, two residents of Tardeo and Kurla, said they were concerned over the likely fallout of the Notification dated April 10, 2008, issued by the Government of Maharashtra for increasing the FSI in the suburbs. They have cited at least 10 different alleged legal violations in the decision making process over the FSI hike. The prime legal contentions according to the PIL where the advocate is former Mumbai cop Y P Singh, are thatthe FSI increase has been been ordered to be given effect immediately, “notwithstanding the fact that suggestions and objections are contemplated to be called as per the statutory procedure prescribed under section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. This fundamentally militates against the statutory provisions.’’ The PIL filed against the state and the BMC said that it appeared that the government was “proceeding with pre-conceived notion. IT would be illogical to call for objections and suggestions now.’’ The amendment amounts to a major modification in law and as such it can only be done if the “entire development plan is prepared afresh.’’ With the increase in FSI, the “entire infrastructure in the suburbs shall get crushed.’’ With the existence of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) already in the suburbs, the actual FSI already amounts to 2 but since the area is large even if the entire TDR potential is used, the actual FSI use would still go marginally, the PIL argued. The petition also pointed out that the supreme court in the ruling given in the case of Suresh Estates has clearly ruled that the draft rule cannot overrule a duly Notified statutory rule. Since the existing statutory rule contained in the D.C. Regulations has prescribed and FSI of 1 as such till the time this rule is duly amended, a conflicting directive can’t be legally sustainable. The other point highlight was that the rise in FSI was violative of a citizen’s right to life under Article 21 because it would lead to lack of basic civic infrastructure. The PIL said that the apex court in a series of decisions held that basic infrastructure amenities such as roads, gardens, recreation ground and other civic facilities is a right of every individual in the country and a right that’s covered under Article 21.
|
