(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 read with Articles 14 and 48-A of the Constitution of India is a Public Interest Litigation by the petitioners who are tax payers and rate payers residing in Bandra area and claim to be deeply interested in environmental protection and planned and orderly development of the city of Mumbai. The first petitioner is the President of the Bombay Civic Trust and the second petitioner is the President of the Save Bombay Committee. First petitioner was for a number of years Municipal Councillor and a Member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and later of the Council. He is also an ex-Minister of the Government of Maharashtra. Second petitioner was an active member of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay for a number of years and is active in the field of environment protection. The third petitioner was a Professor of Bombay University who takes keen interest in environment protection. The fourth petitioner was Director and Labour Advisory in Siemens. The fifth petitioner is a businessman and a founder member of Mumbai Grahak Panchayat. The sixth petitioner is an executive in an International Bank in Bombay and the seventh petitioner was a Senior Manager of the State Bank of India and later consultant to the World Bank. The first respondent is the State of Maharashtra; the second respondent is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the third respondent is the Commissioner thereof. The fourth respondent is the Union of India. The fifth respondent is the appropriate authority under section 269-UA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The sixth respondent is the original owner of plot bearing R. S. Nos. 416 and 417 (Part) situated at Byramji Jijeebhoy Road, Bandra (West), which land is the subject matter of this writ petition. The seventh respondent is a Builder and the transferee of the land described hereinabove. The eighth respondent was the Minister of Revenue in the Government of Maharashtra at the relevant time. The ninth respondent is Enjay Hotels Private Limited and the tenth respondent is Devdut Co-operative Housing Society Limited, both being subsequently added as party respondents in the writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioners claim to be deeply interested in environmental issue and have jointly moved this writ petition to invoke the constitutional powers of this Court to obtain directions against the respondents for what the petitioners feel is unconstitutional, illegal and unjustified depredation of environmental resources in the Bandra Lands End area.
(3.) THE petition had an extremely chequered history and it is necessary to recount the facts leading to the writ petition in some detail so as to appreciate the plethora of complicated legal issues thrown up for consideration of this Court. FACTS