Planning permission for multi-storeyed construction upheld; delayed public interest challenge refused due to laches and third-party interests.

Municipal permission and a building licence for a multi-storeyed structure were upheld because the governing allotment and planning regime did not bar such construction once the purchaser had obtained absolute title and the municipal sanction had been granted; the lease-cum-sale restrictions were confined to the subsisting lease period. The SC also treated the public interest petition as barred by delay and laches, noting substantial progress in construction, intervening third-party interests, and the settled principle that discretionary writ relief is inappropriate in such circumstances. The Division Bench order was set aside and the challenge to the permission and demolition direction failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the municipal permission and building licence for construction of a multi-storeyed building on the allotted site were contrary to the governing planning and allotment regime; and (ii) whether the public interest petition was liable to be rejected for delay, laches, and creation of third-party interests.

Issue (i): whether the municipal permission and building licence for construction of a multi-storeyed building on the allotted site were contrary to the governing planning and allotment regime

Analysis: The applicable planning and allotment framework required development to conform to the sanctioned plan and the governing rules, but the Court found no provision imposing a ceiling barring multi-storeyed construction once the purchaser had obtained absolute title and the municipal authority had granted sanction. The restrictions in the lease-cum-sale arrangement operated during the subsistence of the lease and did not survive after completion of the contractual conditions and execution of the final sale deed. The municipal permission was therefore not shown to be inconsistent with the relevant statutory regime.

Conclusion: The licence and permission were not illegal on the ground that they permitted multi-storeyed construction, and the challenge on that basis failed.

Issue (ii): whether the public interest petition was liable to be rejected for delay, laches, and creation of third-party interests

Analysis: The petition was filed after the construction had substantially progressed and after a long interval from the original sanction, stoppage, and subsequent resumption of work. The Court reiterated that public interest jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and that unexplained delay and laches are material in writ matters, especially where third-party interests and completed construction are involved. The record disclosed substantial passage of time and intervening rights, which made discretionary relief inappropriate.

Conclusion: The writ petition was barred by delay and laches, and the existence of third-party interests reinforced refusal of relief.

Final Conclusion: The Division Bench order was set aside and the appeals were allowed, leaving the challenge to the building permission and demolition direction unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing allotment and planning regime does not prohibit multi-storeyed construction after absolute title is acquired and municipal sanction is granted, and where a writ challenge is brought after substantial delay with intervening third-party interests, discretionary relief under public interest jurisdiction may be refused.

---