LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 1188Decided 24 Oct 2019
Civil Appeal Nos. 8265-8266 of 2019
Justice Arun Mishra · Justice Vineet Saran

Background

Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. (SRUIL) was building a high-rise residential tower (54-56 floors) in Mumbai along with a public parking lot (PPL), the construction of which under Regulation 33(24) of the Development Control Regulations entitled it to incentive floor-space index (FSI) once the parking facility was handed over to the Municipal Corporation. A dispute arose over whether SRUIL had obtained valid ("deemed") permission to build the PPL's upper floors, and separately over the adequacy of the fire-safety "refuge area" approved for the residential tower by the Chief Fire Officer and Municipal Commissioner. An NGO, Janhit Manch, filed public interest litigation challenging the Municipal Corporation's orders, and the Bombay High Court had held that no deemed permission had accrued for the PPL, prompting cross-appeals to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that SRUIL had in fact obtained deemed permission for the PPL's upper floors under Regulation 6(4) of the DCR, since the Corporation failed to respond to SRUIL's 2011 request within the stipulated time, and therefore set aside the High Court's contrary finding on this point. On the refuge-area issue, the Court held it was not an expert body to second-guess the Chief Fire Officer's technical determination (which had been reviewed and confirmed by three successive Municipal Commissioners), and found Janhit Manch's belated objections, raised years after construction had progressed, appeared driven by rivalry rather than genuine public interest; it therefore upheld the Municipal Commissioner's 2016 order on the refuge area. The Court dismissed all of Janhit Manch's PILs and transferred cases, while directing the Corporation to take over the PPL and decide the status of the residential tower's upper floors (44th to 56th) within one month.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will give weight to a competent technical regulator's (here, the Chief Fire Officer's) considered and repeatedly-reviewed safety determination over a public interest litigant's unsubstantiated objections, especially where those objections are raised belatedly after years of construction; and a "deemed permission" can legally accrue under planning regulations if the municipal authority fails to respond to an application within the prescribed time.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case