The Bombay High Court recently directed Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) Commissioner Iqbal Singh Chahal to consider the application seeking permission for a floating hotel (Floatel) two-nautical miles away from the coast of Marine Drive after ascertaining if he had exclusive authority to decide such a plea and if required, may call for No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the police. The court also said that if the BMC Commissioner does not have exclusive jurisdiction in the matter, he shall refer the application to the consideration of the three-member committee constituted by the High Court in 2015 for matters related to Marine Drive promenade. The bench asked Chahal to take a decision as to who has the authority to decide the plea within four weeks and to take final decision on the application in accordance with law four weeks thereafter, or after the committee sends its recommendation, as the case may be. The bench asked the petitioner to submit to the Commissioner all documents and its representations within a period of two weeks and asked the Commissioner to complete the entire process within a period of eight weeks once such documents are received by him. A division bench of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Mahendra W Chandwani passed a judgment last month in a plea by Rashmi Developments Pvt. Ltd. The plea had challenged the May 24, 2017 order of the committee that rejected its proposal, along with the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police- Zone I passed on January 30, 2017 that refused the NOC to the petitioner for the Floatel. Senior advocate Mukesh Vashi appearing for the petitioner told the bench that the Floatel, which will be located in deep sea about two nautical miles from the shore line would comprise of four parts, including waiting area (which consists of sitting lounge, pantry, service area etc), floating jetty (consisting of gangway), parking area and the floating hotel itself. The petitioner submitted that none of the four parts of the entire project will be situated anywhere near or on the Marine Drive promenade and that these parts would be situated beyond a point which is the end of the Marine Drive promenade. Vashi submitted the same was not considered in any way by the committee and passed an order adverse to the petitioner. Senior advocate Anil Y Sakhare appearing for the BMC referred to the August 2015 decision of the High Court which had directed that considering the “unique nature" of the Marine Drive promenade and its proximity to heritage precincts, the BMC can take decision related to the Marine Drive only after the committee constituted by the court recommends granting of such permission. Sakhare added that there was no fault found with the findings recorded by the committee about it having an authority in the matter and therefore its decision was justified. After perusing submissions, the bench "prima facie found substance" in petitioner's submission that the four parts of the Floatel did not form part of the promenade. "This can be seen from the admitted position on the situation of the areas covering the project. As for example, a parking area of 5000 square metre has already been allotted by the MMRDA to the petitioner and it is not part of the promenade. It appears that the starting point of the floating jetty is from the land not forming part of the promenade and even the proposed waiting area appears to be on a piece of land, which is not forming part of the Marine Drive promenade." The bench, while remanding the matter to the BMC, quashed and set aside the orders by the committee and the police noting that the same "will not stand scrutiny of law". It added that the order by DCP-Zone I was in contradiction of the earlier order of the DCP-Harbour Zone who had the authority in the matter and had granted permission to the petitioner.
