P.Navin Kumar & Ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors [1999 (3) LRI 57]

The petitioners, Indian Heritage Society and others filed Public Interest Litigation in Bombay High Court praying for an order to set aside all permissions granted by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Municipal Commissioner for the construction of new toilet blocks and the demolition of old toilet blocks near the Gateway of India. The High Court dismissed the case stating that it is not a fit case for interference under article 226 of the Constitution as toilet block is a must for human being at a place which is visited by large number of persons. The Court said that this facility would prevent nuisance because there could be unauthorized use of open spaces around the Gateway of India. In the appeal before the Supreme Court the petitioner did not challenge the construction of the new toilet block or relief for demolition of old toilet block. The main grievance of the petitioners was the observations made by the High Court relating the coastal Regulation zone. The High Court had made this observation that the area near the Gateway of India is fully developed up to the shoreline and it is within the Municipal limits of greater Mumbai. It is already built up and it has been provided with drainage and approach roads and other infrastructural facilities and hence cannot fall within the ambit of CRZ II. The High Court had also observed that in view of the Clause 1 of CRZ II it is clear that building cannot be permitted to the seaward side of the existing roads and proposed coastal zone management plan. So the construction of toilet block on existing road is not in violation of CRZ II norms. In their order, High Court had also made it clear that once an area is covered under CRXII it could not fall within the ambit of CRZ I or CRZ III. The Supreme Court as regards to the impugned High Court Judgement that the entire city of Bombay would fall within CRZ II held that the observations of the High Court were not warranted. It left the matter for the consideration of notification to the State of Maharastra as it did not find any conflict with regard to substantial laws of CRZ in this petition.