Civil aviation
safety norms cannot be relaxed even for a project by a public authority, the
Bombay High Court held while dismissing the MHADA's petition against an order
passed by the Union Ministry denying it permission to construct a 40-storey
building near the airport here.
A division bench
of Justices Gautam Patel and Kamal Khata on January 10 dismissed the petition
filed by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) against
a decision taken by the appellate authority of the Ministry of Civil Aviation
in December 2021 setting a height restriction for a residential building
proposed near the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport.
The court, in its
order, said the MHADA certainly cannot claim a legal, let alone constitutional,
right to a taller building.
"It cannot
contend that civil aviation safety standards should not apply to it. It cannot
contend that merely because this is an MHADA project, it exceeding a mandated
height poses no danger to civil aviation," the court said.
The court further
said it was reluctant to accept the proposition, "one that paints quite a
startling picture, of aircraft at the CSMIA weaving and swooping around an
oversized MHADA tower as they take off or land".
As per the plea,
the MHADA has proposed a building of a height of 115.54 meters (nearly 40
floors) for middle or low-income housing of 560 tenements.
While the maximum
permissible height was 58.48 meters, the MHADA filed an appeal before the
appellate authority, which then granted permission for 96.68 meters.
The bench, in its
order, noted that there was no question of arbitrariness (in the order), and in
fact, the appellate authority order was favourable to the MHADA.
"The MHADA
is not being selectively targeted for the height restriction. If anything, it
is the other way around," the court said.
It further stated
that if any relaxation is given to the MHADA then the same relaxation would
have to be given to every other developer, including a private party.
"No
relaxation of civil aviation safety norms can be granted only because the
project proponent is a public authority. Aviation safety has nothing to do with
the identity of the developer," the court held.
While dismissing
the plea, the bench said such a petition should never have been filed,
especially by a responsible public authority.
"Why the
MHADA needs a building of 40 floors is unexplained. But this proposed building
falls within the four-kilometre radius of the airport run by the Mumbai
International Airport Ltd (MIAL)," the court said.
The bench added
that the Airport Authority of India has specified height restrictions that
follow internationally mandated aviation safety standards and norms.
"There are
no exemptions just because these are middle-income group housing schemes or
because the applicant is MHADA," the court said.
The bench noted
that the December 2021 order was passed by the Appellate Authority of the
Ministry of Civil Aviation which presumably has at "the forefront of its
mind and decision-making processes concerns of civil aviation as
paramount".