Citation: Sandeep S. Thakur v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., PIL No. 26 of 2024, Bombay High Court 2026:BHC-AS:39993-DB
Open Space on Podium Allowed in Navi Mumbai Redevelopment: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Against NMMC Concessions
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation’s decision to let five redeveloping housing societies provide their compulsory open recreation space on the podium (a raised platform) instead of on the ground. A Vashi resident, Sandeep Thakur, argued that the redevelopment rules for CIDCO-built buildings, which override all other rules, require 10% to 15% of the plot to be open-to-sky space on the ground, over and above any podium garden. He said that without it, residents would crowd the public open spaces nearby. The societies replied that the old CIDCO buildings were dilapidated, and that free rehabilitation flats, height limits, road setbacks and heavy parking requirements left little ground space. Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata held that the general rule allowing the municipal authority to relax rules in cases of hardship (Regulation 2.4) still applies to the CIDCO redevelopment rules, because the “notwithstanding” clause only overrides provisions that actually conflict with it. They also read the rules as allowing the whole open space on the podium if it is open to the sky, as the definition of open space does not require “natural ground”. The court noted that the rule on ground-level space applies to “condominium/plot area”, while these were cooperative housing societies. It added that relaxation is not an exemption but a planning discretion, that safety was not compromised, and that the Corporation had refused it for two other plots. The petitioner gave no material to show that the hardships were made up, or that residents would crowd public spaces. The court also found delay, since construction was already advanced and buyers’ rights had been created, and said the petitioner had picked only five societies, had no planning expertise, and had earlier declined the Corporation’s invitation to join its advisory committee. It added that authorities must be transparent about their decisions and should arrange civic participation, and then dismissed the petition.
A “notwithstanding” clause in a special set of rules overrides other provisions only to the extent they conflict with it, so general rules, such as the power to relax rules in cases of clearly demonstrable hardship, continue to apply. A planning authority’s relaxation of development rules on a case-to-case basis, which does not affect health, fire, structural or public safety, cannot be interfered with in a PIL without material showing it was arbitrary or based on false data. A PIL filed after unexplained delay, when construction is well advanced and third-party rights have been created, is liable to be dismissed.