Adarsh building gets a breather from HC

“In any event,Adarsh Building,as constructed,is not capable of being regularised or compounded,the illegality is wholly incurable,” MoEF director Dr Bharat Bhushan said in an affidavit that was filed in court. “Allowing any manner of regularisation would establish a precedent that would suggest that the petitioners (Adarsh) have been allowed to take advantage of their own wrong.” Arguing for the MoEF,Additional Solicitor-General DJ Khambata told the court,“I am not for a moment suggesting that we won’t take action for demolition.”

But Justice Ranjana Desai told Khambata that while he may “undoubtedly have a good case”,the court needed to give Adarsh a good hearing. The court also said that since Adarsh was currently not occupied by any of its members,the decision to defer the demolition would not benefit anyone.

Adarsh members had challenged the January 14 order of the MoEF to raze the tower entirely as it was found illegal. The three months given to the society’s members ended today. Arguing for Adarsh,senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi and lawyer Ameet Naik said that the construction of the building started seven years back and the MoEF cannot term it illegal as it had the necessary permissions. “This is a 30-storeyed building in the heart of the city. Not some clandestine basement somewhere. There is too much hype around this building when it’s just one building.”

Khambata,however,informed the court that the building did not have all necessary permission and about 2,669 sq m of area was in excess of the permissible FSI and about 17-18 storeys of the building were illegal. “The FSI consumed by the petitioners for the construction of Adarsh Building was 1.77 while the permissible FSI was only 1.33,” Bhushan’s affidavit said. It also mentions that the state government’s Secretary,Environment Department,in his letter of September 2010,had said that the building did not have clearance under the Coastal Regulation Zone norms.

Rohatgi said that despite having an important role,the state government had not filed an affidavit in the case. The state government’s counsel Venkatesh Dhond,however,said that most of the averments in the petition were made against the Centre.

Citing the example of Lavasa,Justice Desai said that if the state government has taken a stand not to regularise illegal constructions in Lavasa,it should stick to its guns in this case as well. “The stand of the state and the union government should be the same,” Justice Desai said.

Another application was filed seeking restoration of electricity to the building stating that any construction,legal or otherwise,is supplied with electricity in Mumbai. “Don’t equate this structure with slum dwellers. That’s all we can say,” Justice Desai said.