MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner, a developer of the property of respondent no.3, speaking for itself and also for respondent no. 3, the owner, is seeking a declaration that it is entitled to 50% concession on premium payable for development of its project in terms of Regulation 35 (1)(a)(iii) in view of a scheme of respondent no. 1 floated under the Government Resolution dtd. 14/1/2021, giving certain concessions including 50% concession or rebate on the premium payable on the development of property during Covid-19 period (hereinafter called for short 'rebate scheme'). The petitioner is also seeking quashing of communication dtd. 8/2/2023 of respondent no. 1 whereby the representation made under the rebate scheme for grant of 50% concession on the premium to be paid by the petitioner for the development of its project on the land bearing CS. No. 1913 of Byculla Division, E Ward situated at Maulana Azad Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai ('subject property' for short), which is owned by respondent no. 3 and which has given all its development rights to the petitioner under agreement dtd. 5/7/2022, was rejected by respondent no. 1. The petitioner is also seeking a direction to respondent no. 1 to grant all permissions and necessary approvals to the petitioner upon payment of 50% premium as per the rebate scheme dtd. 14/1/2021.

(3.) Earlier respondent no.3 had filed an Online application seeking sanction of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to layout development on the subject property in terms of Regulation 35(1)(a) of Development Control Regulation for Greater Mumbai, 2034 ('DCPR 2034' for short). But, the application was, according to the petitioner, erroneously treated as having been made under Regulation 35(1)(b) of DCPR, 2034, and the Regulation 35(1) (b) being kept in abeyance by respondent no.1, was not processed any further. The architect of respondent no.3, therefore, sent a clarification on 16/10/2021 to MCGM that Regulation 35(1)(b) was not kept in abeyance entirely and what was kept in abeyance was only a sharing table below Regulation 35(1)(b) and therefore, he made a request to process the application as per Regulation 35(1) read with Regulation 35(6) of DCPR, 2034. However, as there was no response, the respondent no. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 2859 of 2021 seeking appropriate direction to MCGM. This Court, having considered that the core issue involved in the petition related to respondent no. 1 i.e. Ministry of Urban Development, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, directed respondent no. 1 to decide the representation within one week of the order and, accordingly, keeping all contentions open regarding entitlement of the petitioner to 50% concession granted by the State Government on the premium payable by the developer, disposed of the petition by the order dtd. 15/12/2021.