https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181550 Constructive res judicata under Section 11 CPC did not bar the second writ petition because the earlier public interest litigation had been found not bona fide, so Explanation VI did not bind the present respondents. The challenge to the land development arrangement also failed: the plot continued substantially as a bus depot, the ancillary commercial use was held within statutory powers, and the public tender process negatived allegations of secrecy, undervalue, or mala fides. Building Regulation No. 3 was read as requiring prior modification only for a true change of user, not for a combined use that left the primary sanctioned purpose intact. The development arrangement was therefore upheld. en-us Tue, 26 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:49:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181550 Constructive res judicata under Section 11 CPC did not bar the second writ petition because the earlier public interest litigation had been found not bona fide, so Explanation VI did not bind the present respondents. The challenge to the land development arrangement also failed: the plot continued substantially as a bus depot, the ancillary commercial use was held within statutory powers, and the public tender process negatived allegations of secrecy, undervalue, or mala fides. Building Regulation No. 3 was read as requiring prior modification only for a true change of user, not for a combined use that left the primary sanctioned purpose intact. The development arrangement was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Nov 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181550