SAVITRI LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. Savitri Lal, Mrs. Usha Ahluwalia and M/s. Himland Hotel Resorts Pvt. Limited through Managing Director Mr. Anil Walia are the Petitioners in this writ petition. The State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Town & Country Planning) and Local Self Government, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Respondent No. 1), Director, Town and Country Planning (Respondent No. 2), Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Shimla (Respondent No. 3) and Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (HPSIDC) Respondent No. 4 through its Managing Director are the Respondents and other two persons are proforma Respondents.

(2.) By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek following directions:

(3.) A joint reply on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 2 has been filed by Shri Ashwani Kapur, Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Himachal Pradesh. In reply to paras 5 and 6 of the writ petition it is submitted that planning permission case in favour of Respondent No. 4-Corporation for additions of the existing structure was approved by the department vide No. HIM/TP Case No. 6263/94-1215-16 dated 24.8.1995 and a valid sanction was granted in favour of Respondent No. 4 as per the Rules and Regulations of Town and Country Planning Act and Interim Development Plan (IDP), Shimla. It is also submitted that in the case of buildings pertaining to office, public utilities services etc., the limit of storeys is not limited to four as alleged by the Petitioners and it is within the powers of Respondent No. 2 to grant more number of storeys as per the provisions of IDP, Shimla. It is also alleged that F.A.R. will not apply to the planning permission case of Respondent No. 4-Corporation as the planning permission case was submitted in the office of Respondent No. 2 in the month of July, 1994 whereas the F.A.R. was introduced after 11.3.1995; that as per the approved plans the right side of the buildings, basement floor as well as left sides of first floor has been kept as parking floor; that since the planning permission case for additions in the existing building being used as official complex has only been approved vide office letter dated 24.8.1995 as such the change of land use was not involved in the present case; that as per the provisions of IDP, Shimla the front setback has been proposed as 2.00 mtrs. and the side set-back on both the sides as well as the rear set-back has been proposed for 2.50 mtrs. and that since the permission has been granted for addition to the existing building and no separate block has been proposed, there is no requirement of distance to be kept. The petition is prayed to be dismissed with exemplory costs in the interest of justice.