http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2520 of 2007

PETITIONER: GREATER KAILASH PART-II WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS

RESPONDENT: DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/05/2007

BENCH: C.K. Thakker & Altamas Kabir

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    2520          OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No. 4909/2006)

ALTAMAS  KABIR, J.

       Leave granted. 2.      This appeal involves the apprehension of serious traffic  problems by the residents of Greater Kailash Part -II,  Alaknanda Complex, Mandakini Enclave and Chittaranjan  Park on account of the change of user of the plot situated at  the  junction of Outer Ring Road and the main entry point to  the aforesaid colonies  on which the Savitri Cinema is located.   The  said plot,  (hereinafter referred to as the ’Savitri Plot’ ),  though situated in a  residential area, was  earmarked as  a  cinema complex in the Delhi Master Plan at the initial  stage  when  Greater Kailash Part -II was being developed. 3.      The appellant No. 1 herein is a society duly registered  under the Societies Registration Act and claims to have over  3400 members who are all residents of Greater Kailash Part II  Colony. 4.      There is no dispute that that the Savitri Cinema  Hall had  been operating on the  Savitri Cinema Plot  ever since the  Greater Kailash Part II Colony had come into existence, that  is,  for a period of about thirty years.  The cinema hall was  closed in 1997 by the respondent No.1 after a fire broke out in  the Uphaar Cinema complex.  Subsequently, a decision   was  taken by the respondent No.1 to convert the Savitri Cinema  Hall into a smaller capacity mini cinema hall with modern  features and facilities. The respondent No.1 submitted its  alteration/renovation plans to the Municipal Corporation of  Delhi  (hereinafter referred to as  ’MCD’) for requisite sanction.   As required by the MCD, the respondent No.1 duly obtained  the following clearances :-

(a)      Approval from  Delhi Urban Arts Commission on   24.9.2001;      

(b)      No Objection Certificate from the office  of DCP  Traffic, Delhi on 1.3.2002;

(c)      No Objection Certificate from  Delhi Fire Service on  9.9.2002;

(d)      No Objection Certificate from BSES Rajdhani Power  Ltd. on 30.10.2002;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

(e)      Provisional Clearance Certificate from the office of  DCP Licensing (Cinema), Delhi on 29.11.2002.

5.      On the basis of the above and being satisfied that the  Building Plans were in consonance with the  Building Bye  Laws 1983,  Master Plan 2001 and Delhi Cinematograph  Rules, 2002, the MCD accorded sanction to the said plans on  4th December,  2002 with a direction that such renovation  should be completed by 3rd December, 2004. 6.      It also appears from the materials on record that as per  the sanction granted by MCD, the respondent No.1 completed  the renovation of Savitri Cinema within the time prescribed  and applied to the MCD for Completion Certificate on 2nd  December, 2004. 7.      It is at this stage that the appellants herein filed four  Writ Petitions, being Nos.19798-19801/2004, in the Delhi  High Court in the month of December, 2004, inter-alia,  complaining of  the change of  user of  the Savitri Cinema Plot  by converting it into a multiplex -cum- commercial complex. 8.      The case made out in the writ petitions was that the  respondent No.1 herein was converting the single screen  cinema hall into a multiplex -cum-commercial complex with  four cinema halls which would result in a  much larger  number of visitors to the complex, which, in turn, would result  in a  larger number of vehicles being parked in  and around  the complex and particularly on the road branching off from  Outer Ring Road as the entry point into Greater Kailash Part II  and the other colonies situated  in the area.  It was also the  case of the writ petitioners that the said entry point from  Outer Ring Road being a single entry point into the colonies it  is already congested and there are continuous traffic jams  causing great hardship to the inhabitants of the aforesaid  colonies.   According to the writ petitioners, the congregation  of more vehicles on the already congested entry point would  cause a complete  breakdown  of the traffic system both to and  from  the colonies in question and also on Outer Ring Road  notwithstanding the construction of a  flyover  at that  particular point. 9.      Complaining that the construction of the multiplex -cum- commercial complex  was also  in violation of  the Master Plan  of Delhi, the Building Bye-laws and the Cinematograph Act,  1952, the writ petitioners,  inter\026alia,  prayed for  the following  reliefs :  "(i)  Certiorari quashing the sanction of building  plans for additions/alterations in the existing  building and for conversion into a multiplex mini  cinema-cum-commercial complex at Savitri Cinema  point, Greater Kailash Part \026II, New Delhi \026110048  issued in favour of Respondent No.7;

       (ii)   Mandamus restraining Respondent No.7 from  raising construction     of multiplex mini cinema-cum- commercial complex in place of the pre-existing  Savitri Cinema in Greater Kailash Part \026II, New  Delhi \026110048;

(iii)  Certiorari   quashing  the clearances and  permissions granted to the   building Plans for  addition/alterations and construction of a mini  multiplex-cum-commercial complex submitted by  Respondent No.7 to the Respondent Authorities at  Savitri Point, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi;

(iv)    Mandamus directing the Respondent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

Authorities to discharge their statutory obligations  and duties in respect of the parking and traffic  circulation matters raised by the Petitioners."

10.     The writ petitions were duly contested by the respondent  No.1  herein by filing a counter affidavit in which it was  contended that there was absolutely no substance in the  averments and submissions made in the writ petitions. 11.     It was also contended that the writ petitions were based  on a  mistaken  impression that the respondent No.1 was  converting the existing single screen Savitri Cinema into a  multiplex  cinema complex having four cinema screens which  would lead  to a considerable increase in the number of  cinema seats and the  number of people who could visit the  cinema complex, which in turn, would lead to traffic  congestion  at the T  junction where the  cinema hall was  situated.  It was stated in the affidavit that the writ petitioners  were also under an impression that the alteration and/or  renovation of the Savitri Cinema  Hall was being carried on by  the respondent No.1 without  obtaining statutory clearances  and in contravention  of the existing Building  Bye laws. 12.     It was stated that both the above-mentioned  apprehensions were incorrect and the respondent No.1 had  decided to convert the existing Savitri Cinema Hall, which had  provision for  1000 seats, into a single screen  mini cinema  hall with only 300 seats after obtaining sanction from the  Municipal authorities.  In fact, there would be a substantial  reduction in the number of seats in the cinema hall which  would also reduce the number of visitors to the cinema  complex. 13.     The learned Single Judge proceeded  to dispose of the  writ petitions upon holding that while the existing  capacity of  the cinema hall was to be reduced considerably, the remaining  portions of the renovated structure consisting  of six storeys  was to be used  pre-dominantly as a shopping/commercial  complex.   The learned Single Judge noted  the fact that the  ground-floor  plan disclosed a vast shopping area  and the  sanctioned  plan indicates that the entire ground-floor was to  be  converted into a  departmental store.  The learned Judge  observed that the  mini cinema hall was only a small part of  the proposed alterations of the building and that the rest of  the areas were to  be utilized as shops  or  as commercial  spaces. 14.     The learned Judge also took note of the fact that the  parking norms as indicated in the Delhi Master Plan, 1990,  read with the Building Bye-laws  and the Delhi Cinematograph  Rules, 2002, were in apparent conflict with each other and, in  fact,  the Master Plan   while enumerating the parking  standard for the different categories  indicated in the Master  Plan, did not indicate the parking space required to be  reserved for a  building which was  pre-dominantly to be used  for commercial/shopping purposes and only  a small space  was to be utilized as a cinema hall.  Based on his aforesaid  observations, the learned Single Judge held that the claim by  the Delhi Police and the respondent No.1 about proper  compliance with the parking norms was not accurate and that  after reserving certain spaces for scooters and motor-cycles,  the aggregate space required to be reserved for parking would  be 104 Equivalent Car Space (hereinafter referred to as "ECS"),  while the sanctioned plan provided for 93 ECS. 15.     The learned Single Judge noted the fact that while  prescribing parking standards for different establishments, the  Delhi Master Plan had not laid down the standards for  buildings  to be used both as a cinema hall and a commercial  complex.   In such cases, however,  Note I of the  Parking

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

Standard provided that  where such parking standard had not  been prescribed,  the same would be prescribed by the  authority  depending upon the merits and requirements of   each individual case.  The learned Single Judge held that the  role of the Delhi Development Authority as the Authority   designated by the said Note  in the table appended to Clause 8  (4), had escaped the notice both of the Municipal Corporation  of Delhi as well as the Government of the National Capital  Territory of Delhi.  The learned Single Judge observed that  even the Delhi Development Authority had returned the  reference made to it in May 2002 stating that it had no role to  play in the matter.  After considering the submissions made  on behalf of the respective parties, the learned Single Judge  came to the conclusion that the respondent-authorities had   mechanically granted sanction to the plan submitted  by the  respondent No.1 and had not examined the matter in regard to  applicability  of  the relevant parking standards  with the  required seriousness.  The learned Single Judge felt that the  position of the plot, in the sense of its being  at the entry point  to  several  colonies, the number of  existing vehicles in those  colonies, the number  of religious and educational institutions,  were all relevant factors which should have been taken into  consideration while granting sanction to the plan, at least from  the   parking  angle.  On the basis of his aforesaid findings,  the learned Single Judge  disposed of the writ applications   with the following directions:-

"(a) The impugned sanction granted to the seventh            respondent shall not be operated upon;

(b)     The respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi  shall refer the issue of parking in the mini- theater complex, along with details of the plans  approved by it, to the Delhi Development  Authority, which shall take its decision and  indicate the appropriate parking standard  having regard to all relevant factors, such as  location and size of the plot; its being an entry  point from the Outer Ring  road, to a number   of colonies, containing residential  structures,  educational and religious institutions, etc. if  page 1744 necessary, the DDA shall indicate  the additional parking requirements, and the   underground coverage required for the  purpose;   (c)     The DDA shall also consider the issue of  exit  from the cinema complex, and the likely  inconvenience to or friction that would ensue  to the local residents;  

(d)     The MCD shall make a reference within a  period of 3 (three)  weeks  to the DDA, which  shall decide the matter, and formulate a  suitable parking norm in respect of the plot in  question;

(e)     The decision of the DDA shall be suitably  incorporated in the plans sanctioned in favour  of the respondent No.2, within a period of 4  weeks after receipt of its order by MCD;

(f)     The directions at sub-para (a) above shall cease

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

to subsist, upon steps having being taken, as  per sub-paras (c) to (e) above; the respondents  shall ensure that constructions/alteration to  the cinema complex is in strict conformity with  the changed plans; as per the decision of DDA."

16.     As will be evident from the above, the respondent No.1  was restrained from acting on the basis of the sanction  granted till such time as the other directions of the learned   Judge were complied with.   17.     Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Single  Judge on 18th October, 2005 and the directions made therein,  the respondent No.1 herein filed a Writ Appeal against the said  judgment in the Delhi High Court, being L.P.A. No.  2633/2005. 18.       The Division Bench took the view that the learned  Single Judge had practically sat as a court of appeal over the  decisions of the executive authorities.   The Division Bench  observed that whether the relevant standards and  requirements had been met was  ordinarily for the concerned  authorities  to look into  and not for the  Court,  unless there  was a clear violation of law or something  shockingly arbitrary.     The Division Bench also noted that the writ petition had been  filed challenging the renovation/modification project in  December, 2004 when the project had been duly completed in  terms of the sanctioned plan and  the appellant had applied  for  a Completion Certificate.  It was observed that the writ  petitions should have been dismissed on the ground of laches  without going into the merits.  19.      Apart from the above, the Division Bench also observed  that even on merits the writ petitions were liable to be  dismissed since they were based on a complete misconception  that the respondent No.1 had planned to convert the single      screen Savitri Cinema Hall into a four-screen multiplex and  that the same was being done without requisite permissions  from the concerned authorities.  The Division Bench disagreed  with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge  regarding the role to be played by the Delhi Development  Authority in the matter.  It was observed that the Delhi  Development Authority Act, 1957, classified land into two  categories; (i)  Development areas; and (ii)  areas other than a  developed area.  It was noted that for development in a  developed area, the express written permission of the Delhi  Development Authority was  essential, whereas Section 12 (3)  (ii) of the Act makes it clear that for development in an area  other than the  development area, only prior written approval  or sanction of the local authority  regulating the development  of such other  area was required.  The Division Bench  was  also of the view  that Clause 8 (2) of the  Development Code  to  the Master Plan for Delhi 2001 permits commercial areas   within a  cinema.  The parking requirements for the same had  been prescribed and the parking space reserved in the  sanctioned plan was well over the requirement prescribed not  only  under the Master Plan but also  under  the Delhi  Cinematograph Rules, 2002 and the Delhi Building Bye-laws. 20.     Observing that it did not find any  illegality in the orders  passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or the other  authorities, nor any shocking arbitrariness, the Division  Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the  learned Single Judge. 21.     The instant appeal has been filed against the said  judgment and order passed by the Division Bench allowing the  writ appeal.  22.     Appearing for the Association, Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

Senior Counsel, submitted that the traffic congestion that was  likely to occur on account of renovation of Savitri Cinema Hall  was within the knowledge of the Deputy Commissioner of  Police (Traffic), Delhi when such proposal was initially made.    He referred to a letter dated 18th July, 2001 written by the  Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Delhi to the Deputy  Commissioner of Police (Licensing), pointing out the difficulties  that would be caused if the Multi-Complex was allowed to be  erected on the Savitri Cinema plot and it was pointed out that  even with the existing parking facility available in the Savitri  Complex, the situation becomes very grave especially during  peak hours and there was every likelihood that fatal accidents  could occur as the smooth flow of traffic would also be  obstructed on account of such construction.  A request was  made that in the event the proposal for renovation of the  Savitri Complex was to be approved, the traffic unit should  also be consulted. 23.     Mr. Lalit submitted that the proposal for conversion of  the existing Cinema Building into a Mini Cinema-cum- Commercial Building was forwarded by the Municipal  Corporation of Delhi to the Delhi Urban Art Commission  (hereinafter referred to as ’DUAC’), as would be apparent from  the letter dated 24th September, 2001, written on behalf of  DUAC to the Executive Engineer, (Buildings) MCD, indicating  that the said proposal had been considered by the  Commission in its meeting held on 24th September, 2001 and  the same was approved by the Commission on condition that    the same was  otherwise as per Master Plan, Zonal Plan,  Building Bye-Laws Fire-fighting Regulations, the policy  instructions of the Government of India and if 1% of the  project cost was set apart for "Works of Art" in the building. 24.     It was then urged that the Deputy Commissioner of  Police (Licensing) had consulted the Deputy Commissioner of  Police (Traffic) regarding grant of "No Objection Certificate"  from the Traffic Department to the proposal for carrying out  alteration/modification of Savitri Cinema.  On 1st March,  2002, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) had written  to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) indicating  that the Traffic Department had "No Objection" from the traffic  point of view to such alteration/modification subject to certain  terms and conditions, namely:-  "(1)    To close gate No.1.

(2)    Entry will be only from gate No.2 and  exit will be from gate No. 3 and 4. The  capacity of Cinema Hall may be reduced to  300 seats instead of 1000.   (3)  The use of basement for parking  purposes, which is about 10,000 sq. ft.  should also be made available."

25.     Ultimately, on 25th December, 2002, the Executive  Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (Building  Department) (HQ), gave a Provisional Clearance Certificate and  informed the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police  (Licensing) about the grant of sanction to the proposal for  conversion of the Savitri Cinema Hall into a Mini Cinema-cum-  Commercial Complex.  In fact, the sanction under Section 336  of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was conveyed to the  Respondent No.-I by the Delhi Municipal Corporation by its  letter dated 4th December, 2002, which also contained  instructions relating to the commencement of the construction  of the building. 26.     Once the construction was commenced, the members of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

the Appellant’s Association claim that they came to learn of  the proposal for conversion of the Single Screen Cinema Hall  into a four-screen multiplex together with a commercial  complex which would give rise to grave problems for the  residents of G.K.-II, Alakanda, Mandakini Enclave and  Chittarajan Park in entering and moving out from the colonies  through the T-Junction, where the Savitri Cinema Hall is  situated, on account of the traffic congestion likely to be  caused by visitors to the renovated complex.  Accordingly, on  10th September, 2003, the Association addressed a letter to the  Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, indicating the  difficulties that would result on account of a single entry and  exit at Savitri Point, to and from the above-named colonies in  the event the proposal for renovation of the Savitri Complex  was allowed to stand. 27.     Mr. Lalit submitted that in response to the objections  raised on behalf of the association, the DUAC had invited the  representatives of the Association to appear before the  Commissioner on 12th November, 2003 to indicate their  grievances in the event of conversion of the Savitri Cinema  Hall into a Multiplex.   28.     Pursuant thereto, the members of the Association  appeared before the Commissioner and pointed out that the  role of DDA under Section 7 of the Delhi Development Act,  1957 and the Building Bye-Laws of the MCD had been  overlooked.  It was alleged that the relevant provisions of  clause 13.1 and 13.2 of the Building Bye-Laws relating to  Parking and Parking Space had not been properly followed and  the entire matter required reconsideration.  The objections  taken before the Commissioner were also separately conveyed  to the Chairman, DUAC, by a letter of even date requesting the  Commissioner to have a re-look at the whole scheme of things,  keeping in mind the fact that the venue of the multiplex  complex is the entry point for all the residents living in the  colonies referred to hereinbefore and in particular G.K.-II. 29.     Referring to the Urban Art Commission Act, 1973, Mr.  Lalit submitted that Section 11 of the Act enumerated the  functions of the Commission which included advising the  Central Government in the matter of preserving, developing  and maintaining the aesthetic quality of urban and  environmental design within Delhi and to provide advice and  guidance to any local body in respect of any project or building  operations or engineering operations or any development  proposal which affects or is likely to affect the sky-line or the  quality of the surroundings or any public amenity provided  therein. 30.     On 6th December, 2003, the DUAC informed the  respondent No.I that the proposed conversion of the Savitri  Cinema Hall into a Mini Cinema-cum-Commercial Complex  had been considered by the Commission in its meeting held on  12th November, 2003, and after hearing all concerned, the  Commission had decided to refer the matter to the Standing  Sub-Committee on Traffic Transportation Proposals for  considering all aspects of the proposal.  It was also decided  that the Sub-Committee would consider the matter along with  the Delhi Traffic Police as well as the Municipal Corporation of  Delhi.  In addition, the architects were also advised to look  into the possibility of providing more parking space looking at  the need of extensive parking for this kind of complex. 31.     Mr. Lalit contended that while the aforesaid proposal was  being considered by the different authorities, the Respondent  No.-I changed its original plan and decided to convert the  single-screen cinema into a multiplex having four-screens and  commercial show-rooms.  The said proposal was also  subsequently replaced by a plan to have two cinema screens,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

with each single cinema having 150 seats, which would  operate at staggered timings.  However, on 9th March, 2004, all  the different proposals were withdrawn by the Respondent  No.-I and the DUAC was informed that the first proposal of  having one Cinema Hall of 300 seats and some show rooms on  the ground floor which was cleared on 13th August, 2002, and  on the basis whereof the Building Plan had been sanctioned  on 4th December 2002, would be proceeded with.  The  Commission wrote back to Respondent No.I on 16th March,  2004, indicating that since the proposal had been revised the  same was required to be routed through the Municipal  Corporation of Delhi. 32.     Subsequently, in December 2004, four writ petitions were  filed on behalf of the Association and its office bearers, inter  alia, for a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the  sanction of the Building Plans for conversion of the single  screen cinema hall into a multiplex mini cinema-cum- commercial complex at Savitri Cinema Point, G.K. and for  other reliefs. 33.     Mr.Lalit submitted that the learned  Single Judge had  taken into consideration the parking standards prescribed by  the Delhi Master Plan, 1990 requiring   developers to set apart  Equivalent Car Space in  respect of the establishments  indicated under such parking standard.  Mr. Lalit submitted  that the learned Single Judge also noted the fact that a cinema  hall-cum-commercial complex had not been mentioned in the  list  of establishments mentioned  under the parking standard,  although  premises used for "commercial plotted development"  and  as a  "cinema" have been separately mentioned in the  said list.   Mr. Lalit urged that since the type of construction to  be erected in the Savitri plot was not mentioned in the said  list, the learned Single Judge directed that recourse should be  taken to Note \026I appended to the Parking Standards, which  provided that parking standards in respect thereof would be  prescribed by the Authority depending on the merits and  requirements of each individual case.  Mr. Lalit submitted that  besides the aforesaid provisions relating to parking standards,  the learned    Single Judge  also had occasion to  consider the  provisions of the Building Bye Laws with regard to the  same  subject.  The learned Single Judge took note of Clause 13 of  the Building Bye Laws which also deal with parking space and  provides the specification for the areas to be set apart for  parking in the basement, on the ground floor when the  building is on stilts and in the open spaces.  In particular, the  learned Judge took note of Clause 26 which deals with  assembly buildings such as cinemas, theatres, etc.  Clause  26.2 provides that where parking spaces are not specifically  indicated, the same is to conform to Bye Law 13 mentioned  hereinabove. 34.     Mr. Lalit submitted that apart from the above, the  learned Single Judge also noticed the provisions relating to  parking under the Delhi Cinematograph Rules 2002 framed  under the Delhi Cinematograph Act.  The learned Judge noted  that the norms prescribed by the different Rules and Bye-laws  appeared to be in conflict with each other and on a  consideration   of the entire situation, the learned Judge was  of the view that the Authority contemplated in Note \026I to the  Parking Standards under the Master Plan, namely, the Delhi  Development Authority, should decide the area to be set apart  for parking in the new complex which was to replace the  Savitri Cinema Hall in the Savitri Plot.  The learned Single  Judge accordingly disposed of the writ petitions with the  directions set out hereinbefore.  Mr. Lalit pointed out that the  main purport of the directions given by the learned Single  Judge was that in terms of Note \026I the Delhi Development

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

Authority should not only indicate the additional parking  requirements and the underground coverage for the purpose,  but should also consider the question involving the exit of  vehicles from the cinema complex and the inconvenience   likely to be caused to the  local residents as a result thereof. 35.     Mr. Lalit suggested that the question of constructing an  underpass to avoid the T. Junction could be considered  by  the Delhi Development Authority while considering the  questions relating to traffic congestion referred to above. 36.        Mr. Lalit lastly contended that although the High Court  had held that the writ petitioners were guilty of laches on  account of the fact that the sanction to the renovation plan  had been granted in the year 2002, whereas the writ petitions  had been filed in the year 2004, in actual  effect, the writ  petitioners were initially unaware of the nature of the  building  which was to replace the existing Savitri  Cinema Hall and  once they came to learn of the actual plan, they  raised   objections to the concerned authorities from  September,  2003, but in the absence of  any positive  response, they were  compelled  to file writ petitions in order to prevent a disaster in  the making while it could still be prevented.  Mr. Lalit urged  that the DUCA, which was required to consider the effect of  building operations on any public amenity provided therein  could be directed to give the writ petitioners a fresh hearing so  that the problem which was looming large could be addressed. 37.     Appearing for the respondent No.1, Mr. Arun Jaitley,  learned senior counsel, submitted that the apprehension of  the writ petitioners on the question of   traffic congestion on  account of the conversion of the Savitri Cinema Hall into a  Mini-Cinema Hall-cum-Commercial Complex was completely  unfounded as the parking space that had been set apart for  vehicles visiting the complex was in excess of the parking  standard contemplated under the Delhi Master Plan, 1990.   He indicated that  while the  parking standards  under the  Master Plan required 93 ECS to be kept apart for the complex,  in effect 98 ECS had been set  apart for the said purpose,  which included 10,000 Sq.Ft. in the basement.  Mr. Jaitley  urged that even under the parking norms  under the Delhi  Cinematograph Act and the Rules and the Building Bye Laws,  a similar amount of space was required to be kept apart for  parking.  The plan prepared by the respondent No.1 for  sanction was in complete conformity with the Building Bye  Laws and the other Rules and Regulations and the writ  petitioners could have no cause for complaint in respect  thereof.  Mr. Jaitley urged that the Delhi Development  Authority, which had been directed  by the learned Single  Judge to consider the question of calculating and specifying  the  space to be kept apart for parking in the renovated  complex was not empowered to do so and it was only vested  with authority under Section 12 of the Delhi  Development  Act, 1957 to oversee the development of  lands.  He also  pointed out that where the area to be developed was an area  other then a developed area, such development would have to  be effected upon obtaining sanction from the local authority  concerned or any officer or authority thereof empowered or  authorized in that behalf.   38.     Mr. Jaitley also submitted that since the respondent No.1  had obtained sanction for renovation and/or conversion of the  existing Savitri Cinema Hall into  a Single Cine Complex     cum Commercial Complex, which  was in conformity with the   Building Bye Laws and the Parking Standards  prescribed   under the Delhi Master Plan, it was not open to the writ  petitioners to raise  any objection to the proposed renovation  merely  on the apprehension of  likelihood of traffic congestion. 39.     Mr. Jaitley submitted that the Delhi Urban Art

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

Commission had been constituted under the  Delhi  Urban Art  Commission Act, 1973,  not for the purpose  of considering  matters  as are in issue in the writ petitions filed by the  appellants herein.   40.       Mr. Jaitley submitted that the Licensing Authority,  namely the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) had  consulted the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) before  granting "No Objection Certificate" to the plan of renovation of  the Savitri Cinema Complex. 41.     Mr. Jaitley submitted that although an attempt had been  made by the Writ Petitioners to involve the DUAC in the  process of grant of sanction, neither the Delhi Urban Art  Commission Act, 1973 nor the Building Rules and Regulations  under the various enactments contemplated such involvement  of the DUAC in such matters except to the extent of  maintaining and preserving the aesthetic quality of such  building plans. 42.     Mr. Jaitley submitted that there was no provision in the  1973 Act which enabled the DUAC to entertain objections from  citizens in respect of Building Plans submitted by individuals  for construction on a particular plot. So long as the said  Building Plans were in conformity with the Building Bye-Laws  and the norms laid down in the Master Plan and so long as the  plan did not offend the aesthetic quality of urban and  environment design, the DUAC had no role to play in the grant  of sanction to the building plan. 43.     Mr. Jaitley submitted that, in fact, about 1 acre of  parking space had been provided for in the sanctioned plan,  both in the open area and also in the basement, which was  required to be set apart under the parking standards laid  down by the Delhi Master Plan, 1990.  It was also urged that it  would be against all equitable considerations to disturb or  alter the sanction as granted since the construction has  already been completed as per the sanctioned plan and a  ’Completion Certificate’ had been issued by the Municipal  Corporation of Delhi to the Respondent No.-I on 6th March,  2006.   44.     Mr. Jaitley urged that the directions given by the learned  Single Judge purportedly in keeping with Note-I of the Parking  Standards as indicated in the Delhi Master Plan, 1990,  amounted to legislation by the Court since provisions had  already been made under the said Parking Standards for the  ECS to be set apart for a Cinema Complex or even for   commercial plotted development.  According to Mr. Jaitley,  since the Savitri Complex had been earmarked as a Cinema  Hall, the entry relating to "Cinema" under the Parking  Standards was sufficient to meet the parking space required to  be set apart in the renovated Single Screen Cineplex-cum-  Commercial Centre. He added that although it had been  suggested that under the 2021 Delhi Master Plan, the ECS  required to be set apart was 3, the same could have no  application to the complex which has been erected by the  Respondent No.I in keeping with the plan sanctioned by the  concerned authorities. 45.     Mr. Jaitley urged that the writ petitions filed by the  appellants should not have been entertained on account of the  delay and laches of the writ petitioners.  Although, sanction  had been granted to Respondent No.-I as far as back as on 4th  December, 2002, and construction had been commenced soon  thereafter, the first time an objection was taken by the  appellants was on 10th September, 2003 and the writ petition  was, thereafter, filed in December, 2004, when the  construction had already been completed. Mr. Jaitley  submitted that it would be inequitable at this stage to consider  the contentions now being raised by the appellants.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

46.     Mr. Jaitley ended his submissions by referring to the  affidavit affirmed on behalf of the DUAC by its Secretary which  supported the case of the Respondent No.-I and wherein it had  been stated that as far as the DUAC was concerned, the  grounds indicated by the writ petitioners in the special leave  petition were misconceived and the special leave petition  deserved to be dismissed.   47.     Very little was added on behalf  of the State and the   DUAC to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and  the respondent No.1.  On behalf of  the State, the provisions of   Rule 3 of the Delhi Cinematography Rules, 1981, were referred  to for the purpose of reiterating that any person desirous of  erecting  a cinema house or converting  an existing building  into a cinema house has to apply  to the  Licensing Authority  for  a Provisional  Clearance Certificate in respect of the   building and the site plans.  If the  plans were found  to be in  conformity with the Rules, the  Licensing Authority  was under   an obligation in consultation with the Executive Engineer,  P.W.D.  to grant  a Provisional Clearance Certificate.  It has  also been stipulated  that the grant of such Provisional  Clearance Certificate would not ipso facto entitle the applicant  for grant of a    regular cinema licence on completion of the  building or give any immunity from the application of  any new  provisions  to the Rules which may be incorporated after the  issue of such Certificate and before the grant of a licence  under the Act. 48.     What transpires  from the  submissions made on behalf  of the  appellant-Association is its apprehension of serious  traffic problems if the respondent No.1 is permitted to use the  Savitri Cinema Complex for the purposes  mentioned  in the  sanctioned plan without suitable modifications.     On  the one  hand, the owners  of the Savitri Plot  have obtained  requisite  sanction under the relevant Rules and Regulations and  Building Bye Laws  to convert the existing  single-screen  cinema hall into  a mini cinema hall -cum commercial  complex.  There is no denying the fact that the respondent  No.1 has complied with all the requirements of the  law for the  aforesaid purpose.   On the other hand, there is a real  apprehension on the  part of the appellants that the approach  to the above-mentioned colonies will be completely  choked on  account of the traffic congestion that is likely to be  caused  as  a result of the  number of visitors  who are likely to visit the  renovated  complex which will consist of not only a cinema  hall, but a  six-storeyed building dedicated to commercial   activities.  The respondent No.1 has complied with the parking  standards prescribed under the Building Bye-Laws, the Delhi  Master Plan and the Cinematograph Rules and as pointed out  by Mr. Arun Jaitley,  even more space than what was required  under the Rules have been set apart for the purpose of   parking so that congestion at the T. junction is avoided,  notwithstanding the number of visitors to the renovated  complex.  However,  the problem that is envisaged  by the   residents of the aforesaid colonies  is not only the parking-   related problems, but the problems resulting on account of the  increased flow of vehicles at the T. junction.  It is such  apprehension that has led to the filing of the writ petitions by  the residents of the aforesaid colonies. 49.     It has been submitted that the writ  petitioners/appellants herein, would be satisfied if  they are  given an opportunity  of  hearing by DUAC so that they could  explain the  ground realities of the fall-out of the sanction  granted for conversion of the Savitri Cinema Hall into  a  Mini  Cinema Hall \026cum - Commercial Complex. 50.     From the materials  on record there is no ambiguity    that sanction  was granted to the respondent No.1 to make the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

above-mentioned conversion strictly  in accordance with the   Rules and Building Bye Laws, even to the point of   consultation by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing)  with the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) on the  specific problem apprehended by the appellants. It is only   after clearance was obtained from the Deputy  Commissioner  of Police (Traffic) that  a No-Objection Certificate was issued by  the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) and sanction  was granted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.  Although,  it has been argued on behalf of the appellants  that the Deputy  Commissioner of Police (Traffic) had mechanically given his  consent to the plan, we have to respect his decision and the  decision of the Municipal Corporation who are  the experts in  such matters. 51.     Apart from the above, the DUAC  appears to have  considered the objection made on behalf of the appellants in  its meeting held on 12th November, 2003  and after hearing all  concerned, the Commission had decided to refer the matter to  the Standing Sub-Committee on Traffic, Transportation  Proposals for the purpose of considering all aspects of the  proposal with the broad object of providing more   parking  space in view of   the need of extensive parking for this kind of  a complex.  Moreover, the DUAC  had in its affidavit filed in  the proceedings  stated that as far as DUAC is concerned, the  grounds indicated by the writ petitioners in the Special Leave  Petition are misconceived and the Special Leave Petition  deserved to be dismissed. 52.     The owner of a plot of  land is entitled to use and utilize  the same for any lawful purpose and to erect any construction  thereupon in accordance with  the existing rules. So long as  such owner does not contravene any of the provisions which  restrict  his use  of the plot in any manner,  he cannot be   prevented from utilizing the same in accordance with  law.  In  this case, the respondent No.1 which is the owner of the  plot  in question cannot be denied the use of the plot on account of  the apprehension of the appellants, particularly when he has  already raised the structure  in accordance with the  sanctioned plan.  It is not the case of the appellants that the  respondent No.1 has in any manner deviated from the building  plan as sanctioned.  The grievance  of  the appellants is   confined to the possible problem that may arise  from the use  of  the building as a   Cinema Hall \026cum- Commercial  Complex.  Once the authorities who are competent  to do so  have indicated that the apprehension was unfounded,  it is not  for the Writ Court to interfere with such decision.   53.     Although, the parking standards under the  Delhi Master  Plan, 1990, do not specify the parking space to be set apart for  a Cinema Hall \026cum- Commercial Complex, the Municipal  authorities, who are the sanctioning authorities of any  building plan, have considered  the parking space set apart for  the renovated  complex to be sufficient to meet the  requirements so as not to cause any traffic congestion as  apprehended.  In fact, the Delhi Development Authority to  whom  a direction has been given by the learned Single Judge  in terms of Note \026I of the Parking Standards prescribed under  the Delhi Master Plan  has little or no role to play in the  sanctioning of the building plan.  Such a direction, in our   view, is misconceived and cannot be  sustained. 54.     In our view, the Division  Bench was justified in  observing that the learned Single Judge had in effect sat in  appeal over  the decision of the Executive authorities which he  was not entitled to do in law.  55.     We, therefore,  see no reason to interfere with the orders  passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowing  the Writ Appeal and setting aside the judgment of the learned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

Single Judge.  If, however, in future  the necessity so arises,    the concerned authorities will be at liberty to take appropriate  steps to contain any problem that may arise, in accordance  with law.  The instant appeal  fails and is  dismissed.   56.     There will be no order as to costs.