S) C.M. Dinesh Mani v. St at e of Kerala and Ot hers) for cont ending t hat Nat

Mr. Abhij ay Negi, Advocat e, for t he pet it ioners. Mr. Jagdish Counsel, for t he St at e. Bisht , St anding Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocat e, t he MDDA. According t o pet it ioners, t hey are ( 2) resident s of ‘Serene Greens’, a group housing societ y developed by respondent no. 4; respondent no. 4 is now in t he process of developing anot her proj ect , known as t he vicinit y of Oakwood Apart m ent s, Serene Greens. According t o pet it ioners, t he new proj ect is being developed in violat ion of Nat ional Building Code and MDDA Bye- Laws. Thus feeling aggrieved, pet it ioners have approached t his Court seeking t he following reliefs: t o quash “ i. I ssue a writ order or dir ect ion in t he nat ure of cert iorari t he new sanct ioned m ap as approv ed on dat ed 18 t h March 2025 ( Annexure No. 11) as being cont rary t o t he r eport earlier pr epared by t he MDDA’s inv est igat ion t eam dat ed 4 t h Sept em ber 2024 and 24 t h Sept em ber 2024 ( Annexure No. 3) which m ade finding of m isr epr esent at ion and fraud in t he m anner in which t he Oakwoods m ap was sanct ioned in t he y ear 2021, and being cont rary t he Ut t arakhand building bylaw s as t he present proj ect is not in a “ Developed Ar ea” . t o clause 2.61 of ii. I ssue a w rit order or direct ion in t he nat ur e of cert iorari t o quash clause 2.61 of t he Ut t arakhand building bylaw s as int roduced by t he am endm ent of 2019 as being cont rary t o t he Nat ional Building Court as being cont rary t o clause 2.25 of t he Nat ional Building Code w hich provides for a m inim um 12 m et ers widt h for a group housing proj ect . ( Annex ur e No. 15) 2 t o nat ur e direct ing of m andam us no. iii. I ssue a w rit order or dir ect ion in t he t he respondent t he represent at ions as aut hored by t he Pet it ioner t o t he Com m issioner Garhwal. ( Annex ure No. 13) and t ake appropriat e act ion against t he erring officials of Respondent No. 2 MDDA, t he m ap as t he sanct ioning of facilit at ing approv ed on dat ed 18 t h March 2025 ( Annex ur e No. 11) .” t he According ( 3) t o pet it ioners, MDDA has changed t he norm s regarding widt h of t he road. Pet it ioners are challenging Clause 2.61 of Ut t arakhand Building Const ruct ion & Developm ent Bye- Laws, 2011, as am ended in 2019. According t o pet it ioners, Clause 2.61 before am endm ent , provided t hat m inim um widt h of t he road leading t o a m ult i- st orey group housing societ y should be 12 m et res, however, by am endm ent , widt h of such road is reduced t o 9 m et res. This, according t o learned t he pet it ioners, is cont rary t o Nat ional Building Code, which is t o be m andat orily followed. appearing bye- laws, Counsel 2011, ( 4) Per cont ra, Mr. Rahul Consul, appearing for MDDA, refers t o Clause 1.2( 2) of Ut t arakhand Building Const ruct ion & Developm ent Bye- Laws, provides t hat wherever Ut t arakhand Building Const ruct ion & Developm ent Bye- Laws, 2011 are silent on any aspect , t hen t he Model Building Bye- Laws fram ed by Bureau of I ndian St andards shall be applicable. He furt her subm it s t hat ‘Nat ional Building Code’ is in t he nat ure of guidelines, form ulat ed by Bureau of I ndian St andards on t he request of t hat Planning Com m ission. He subm it s & Building Ut t arakhand Developm ent cont ain Bye- Laws, specific provision regarding widt h of road, t herefore Nat ional Building Code will have no applicat ion on t he said aspect , in view of Clause 1.2( 2) of Ut t arakhand Building Const ruct ion 2011 Const ruct ion & Developm ent Bye- Laws, 2011. He relies on a j udgm ent rendered by Division Bench of Kerala High Court in WP( C) No. 20706 of 2013 ( S) ( C.M. Dinesh Mani vs. St at e of Kerala and Ot hers) for cont ending t hat Nat ional Building Code is only a general t he guideline governm ent . binding We subst ance t he ( 5) subm ission m ade by Mr. Rahul Consul. I n view of express provision cont ained in Clause 1.2( 2) of Ut t arakhand Building Const ruct ion & Developm ent Bye- Laws, 2011, provisions of Nat ional Building Code will be at t ract ed only when Ut t arakhand Building Const ruct ion & Developm ent Bye- Laws, 2011 are silent on any part icular aspect . Thus challenge t o Clause of Ut t arakhand Building Const ruct ion & Developm ent Bye- Laws, 2011, as m ade in prayer no. ( ii) , is wit hout any subst ance.

2.61 Housing ( 6) As regards ot her reliefs claim ed by pet it ioners, t hey are perm it t ed t o approach Urban Ut t arakhand Developm ent Aut horit y under Sect ion 7- B( 4) of Ut t arakhand Urban and Count ry Planning & Developm ent Act , 1973. Writ pet it ion is, accordingly, disposed of by perm it t ing t he pet it ioners t o m ake a j oint represent at ion t o Urban Ut t arakhand Developm ent Aut horit y. I f pet it ioners m ake represent at ion wit hin t wo weeks from t oday, t he Aut horit y shall look int o t he m at t er and t ake decision, as per law, wit hin four m ont hs t hereaft er. Housing I t ( 7) t hat goes wit hout respondent no. 4 shall also be heard before t aking pet it ioners’ represent at ion. decision saying ( Su b h ash Up a d h y ay , J.) ( M a n o j K u m ar Ti w a r i , J.) Pr PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR 1 1 .8 .2 0 2 5