HC reserves order on Adarsh petitions

The Bombay High Court today reserved its order on a bunch of petitions in connection with the scam- tainted Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society in south Mumbai.
A division bench of justices R V More and R G Ketkar had in September started final hearing in the petitions including one filed by the society in 2011 challenging an order of demolition passed by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest and a petition filed by the Ministry of Defence seeking implementation of the demolition order.
The 31-storeyed residential building located in plush Colaba has been embroiled in a controversy for flouting several environment norms and regulations and for allegedly not taking the requisite permissions.

The Defence Ministry has been claiming ownership of the land where the Adarsh building stands. It has also claimed that the building poses a high security risk.
In January 2011, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest had issued a demolition order on the ground that the Society did not have Coastal Zone Regulation clearance.
The judges also directed the state government and the

Centre to consider departmental inquiry against the officials.
It also directed the Ministry of Defence to hold an in-depth inquiry to find out the lapses or reasons on the part of its officers for not filing a writ petition in the matter at the earliest.

The court asked the Defence Ministry to hold an inquiry to find out whether the General Officers Commanding (GOCs) between 1999 and July 13, 2010, namely, Maj General A R Kumar, Maj General V S Yadav, Maj General T K Kaul, Maj General Tejinder Singh and Maj General R K Hooda compromised the security of CMS (Colaba Military Station) in return for allotment of flats in Adarsh.
The bench drew on the report of Justice J A Patil Commission, appointed by the state government to probe the role of senior bureaucrats and politicians including former Chief Ministers Vilasrao Deshmukh and Ashok Chavan, in the judgement.

On whether clearance from Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) was required, the HC said that considering the object of Environment Protection Act and the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notifications of 12.11.1997, the clearance of MoEF or authorities at state level was needed.
"On April 10, 2002, the state government reduced the width of Captain Prakash Pethe Marg from 60.97 metres to 18.40 metres. The area so deleted was included partly in residential among others (for Adarsh Society)," the judgement said.
The High Court refused to accept the Society's contention
that a letter sent by MoEF to the state Urban Development Department (UDD) on March 11, 2003, can be held as a clearance for construction from the union ministry.

The letter dated March 15, 2003, written by P V Deshmukh, then Deputy Secretary of state UDD, to Adarsh Society stating that MoEF had given clearance for construction was "totally uncalled for" and this letter was issued a few days before Deshmukh himself applied for membership in the society, the court noted.
The adjoining BEST plot and the land on which the Adarsh building was constructed were two separate plots, hence the Society cannot use the FSI from the BEST plot, the HC said.
"Petitioners have not obtained environmental clearance either from MoEF or from state-level agency and we have held that the recommendations of MCZMA are mandatory and environmental clearance is also necessary," HC said.

(Reopens LGB8)
Regarding reduction of the width of Prakash Pethe Marg, the bench referred to Patil Commission's finding that it was not at all in public interest and was meant only to serve the interests of the private Society (Adarsh).
Considerations of traffic congestion and security operations of Army during emergency were totally ignored, the HC said citing the report.
"Ultimately, the Commission findings said that the reduction of the proposed width and change of reservation from road to residential in respect of Capt Prakash Pethe Marg was not in accordance with the provisions of MRTP Act (Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act) and it was illegal and mala fide," the judges said.

"...No notice was given (as per the Act) to the Minister of Defence which is an affected party by the said modification (in Development Plan) pertaining to reduction in the width," the HC noted.