S. B. Sinha, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal has been preferred by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) whereby the conduct of MCGM had been criticised under the caption "Certain Disturbing Aspects".
(3.) The High Court commented that the appellant had admitted that the developers are not providing for any public amenities. The submission of Mr. K.K. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the information sought for had been supplied by the appellant by way of affidavits affirmed by the Chief Engineer (DP) on 14-9-2005 and 15-9-2005 wherein it was pointed out that in terms of Development Control Regulation (DCR) 27, only 5% of the total area was to be designated as "Amenities" only when the plot area exceeds 2 hectares. In view of the fact that the said DCR 27 was required to be read with DCR 58, as the share of the owner was less than 2 hectares, the lands were permitted to be developed as there was no requirement to provide additional 5% public amenities. It has not been shown that DCR 27 has been violated. The High Court, furthermore, held that MCGM took no steps as regard compliance of EIA notification until they directed to do so during the final hearing of the writ petition. It is not in dispute that completion or occupation certificate had not been given and as such no prejudice had been caused to anybody.;