S.A.BOBDE, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the State of Maharashtra against an interim order dated 15.2.2001 passed by the learned single Judge permitting the respondent no. 1 Swan Mills Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent-company") to commercially develop the property in question and directing the appellant-state and respondent nos. 3 to 5 to pass necessary orders and grant necessary certificates, approvals, etc. The learned single Judge has further directed the appellant and respondent nos. 3 to 5 to decide the application of respondent-company for commercial development of the property without regard to the provisions of the Development Control Regulations or the ban order dated 29.2.1996. Further, by the order in appeal, the order of the Municipal Commissioner revoking the permission for commercial development of the property has been stayed. In effect, the Writ Petition filed by the respondents seems to have been virtually allowed by the said interim order. We have, therefore, taken up the Writ Petition itself for final hearing with the consent of both the sides.
(2.) THE respondent-company filed the present Writ Petition challenging, inter alia, the order dated 11.1.2001 issued by the respondent no. 3 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent-Corporation) revoking with immediate effect permission for commercial development of the industrial zone, being land bearing C.S. nos. 83/1 to 19, hereinafter referred to as the "property in question." One of the main challenges made by the learned counsel for the respondent-company (original petitioner no. 1) is that the Municipal Commissioner and the Secretary, Co-operation & Textiles Department, having granted permission to carry out commercial development on C.S. nos. 83, 83/1 to 19, situate at L.B.S. Marg, Kurla, admeasuring 22,204.80 sq. mtr. and the respondent-company having acted on the said permission and altered its position, the said authorities are now estopped from revoking the said permission. The crucial question, therefore, is whether the respondent-company is entitled to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel and thereby have the impugned order dated 15.2.2001 revoking the permission set aside.
(3.) THE property in question consists of open land and was used for storage for the business of the respondent-company. According to the respondent-company, manufacture and production of textiles was not carried on the said plot. Textiles were manufactured by them on property bearing C.S.nos. 83, 83/1 to 19 which is separated from the property in question by a public road.;