R K MITTAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel appearing for the Noida Authority at the very outset regrets his absence on the last date of hearing and submits that entire record has been brought and even affidavit has been prepared to be filed in this Court showing the steps taken by the Noida Authority in furtherance to and after the pronouncement of the judgment of this Court dated 5-12-2011, R.K. Mittal v. State of U.P., 2012 2 SCC 232 We do not intend to take this affidavit on record at this stage. In view of the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the Noida Authority and its CEO, we are of the opinion that no further action need be taken against the Noida Authority or its officers at this stage and we will proceed to deal with all the applications in accordance with law.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length, and Mr S.K. Dwivedi, CEO of the Noida Authority, who is present in Court with records, we pass the following directions and order: the applications for intervention are dismissed. It has been argued on behalf of some of the applicants and, in fact, commonly conceded that for professionals, 25% of the permissible FAR is allowed to be used by them for professional purposes.

(3.) It is further contended that 30% of the ground floor area permitted to be used under para 74.5 of the judgment1 is very inconvenient and contrary to the bye-laws and Master Plan of Noida. This area would be completely insufficient to meet the minimum requirements of the professionals. As it is a conceded position on behalf of the Noida Authority that 25% of the permissible FAR can be used by the professionals for their professional activities, we consider it reasonable to modify the directions given in para 74.5. However, we make it clear that this will be applicable only to the lawyers, architects and doctors for running limited professional activity and not at commercial levels. Another argument that has been addressed is that the expression "ground floor" used in the same clause may be clarified to mean "any floor" because somebody may be having a two-storied house and may himself be living on the first floor only.