High Court Directs MCGM Commissioner To Decide Fate Of Proposed 'Floating Hotel' In Mumbai

“We further direct that the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation shall take his final decision in the matter in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of his decision having exclusive jurisdiction or receipt of recommendations from the Three Member Committee, as the case may be”, the court said.

The court directed the Commissioner to first decide whether he has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the matter or whether recommendations from the three-member committee formed by the High Court are required.

The Commissioner has to decide the NOC application within four weeks from the date of his decision regarding jurisdiction and within eight weeks from the date of submission of all relevant papers and representation by the petitioner company.

The division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani also set aside the three-member committee’s 2017 order denying permission to construct the floating hotel and related infrastructure.

The three-member committee was constituted via the High Court’s order on August 6, 2015, in a PIL Vinay Mulchand Yadav v. State of Maharashtra. The MCGM has to permit, prohibit or regulate any activity at Marine Drive depending upon the committee’s recommendation.

The petitioner sought permission to construct a Floating Hotel two nautical miles into the sea. Permission was also sought for construction of a waiting area and floating jetty near the National Centre for Performing Arts. The petitioner said that it will implement the project on the basis of an MoU with MTDC.

The committee consisting of the Chairman of the Mumbai Heritage Conservation Committee, the Police Commissioner, Mumbai and the MCGM Commissioner denied the permission. Bombay HC in 2018 upheld this decision observing that the infrastructure would be an extension of the Marine Drive Promenade. However, last year, the Apex Court set aside the HC’s decision and sent the matter back for fresh consideration.

In the second round, the court agreed with the petitioner’s contention that none of the proposed structures form part of the Marine Drive Promenade. The court noted that the starting point of the floating jetty does not form part of the promenade and the proposed waiting area is on a piece of land not on the Promenade. Further, the parking area has been allotted by the MMRDA and is not part of the Promenade.

Thus, the court stated that the MCGM Commissioner has to first decide whether he has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the petitioner’s NOC application. “…if he decides that he has such jurisdiction in the matter, he would have to go ahead to consider the application of the petitioner on its own merits, without being influenced by the order passed by this Court and also order passed by the Three Member Committee on 24th May 2017”, the court added.

However, if the Commissioner concludes that he has no exclusive rejection then he would have to refer the matter to the three-member committee and act on its recommendation, the court said. The recording of finding on jurisdiction is important as it does to the root of the dispute in the case, the court held.

The court also set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-1, rejecting the NOC application. That order was based on the objection by the Senior Police Inspector, Marine Drive Police Station and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Colaba division. The court said that neither of these authorities have any jurisdiction in the matter and the police authorities having jurisdiction have already given the green signal.

“The authority which is having jurisdiction in the matter, i.e. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mumbai had already granted permission for the subject project vide its communication dated 13th April 2011. There is another communication dated 9th June 2016 of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Office-1, MCGM granting permission for implementing the Floatel project and carrying out incidental activities. This permission, granted on 9th June 2016, would in particular, nullify the subsequent objection taken by the subordinate officer of the Commissioner of Mumbai Police”, the court held.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 2591 of 2017

Case Title – Rashmi Developments Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 76