JUDGMENT Rule, Respective counsel waive service of Rule. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 3. Petitioner No.1 is a Cooperative Housing Society of occupants of buildings which were constructed by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). MHADA has permitted the Petitioner No.1-society to redevelop the property under Regulation 33(5) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991. Petitioner No.2 is the developer which has been given the development rights on the above land in Nahur, Mulund (West), Mumbai. The land admeasures 6164 square meters as per the property card. 4. By now, all the eight buildings which were constructed by MHADA have been demolished and 160 members of Petitioner No.1-Society have been shifted to transit accommodation or have been provided compensation by way of fixed rental amount to enable the members to take rented premises on their own as a temporary arrangement till new buildings are constructed by Petitioner No.2-developer. So far the Petitioners have applied for and have been granted building permission for rehabilitation buildings and free sale buildings. According to the Petitioners, the Petitioners have been granted such permission in the form of IOD by the Municipal Corporation to the extent of 9691.92 square meters for the rehabilitation building and 5117.88 square meters for the free sale buildings, including staircase and lift area. 5. It is the Petitioners' case that under the Government of India Notification dated 14 September, 2006, environmental clearance is required to be obtained from the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA or the Authority, for brevity) if the construction proposed to be put up is going to exceed 20,000 square meters. It is submitted that since the land has construction potential of more than 20,000 square meters, the Petitioners have applied for environmental clearance before the SEIAA in August 2012, but for the present, the Petitioners are only going to construct the rehab buildings to the extent of 9691.92 square meters and 5117.88 square meters for the free sale buildings, including staircase and lift areas. Thus, the total built up are proposed to be constructed by the Petitioners would only be 14809.8 square meters. Thus, the total built up are proposed to be constructed by the Petitioners would only be 14809.8 square meters. The Petitioners submit that looking to about 300 such Applications for environmental clearance pending before the SEIAA, the Petitioners' application is not likely to be decided for a period of about two to three years. It is, therefore, submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Respondent Municipal Corporation be directed to consider the Petitioners' application for commencement certificate upto 14809.8 square meters without insisting for environmental clearance from SEIAA. 6. Mr. Niranjan Pandit, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-Authorities does not admit that the SEIAA is likely to take three years for deciding the Petitioners application of environmental clearance. 7. This aspect was considered by this Court while deciding Writ Petition No.1916/2012-Vardhman Developers Limited v. Union of India & ors decided on 24 September 2012 and this Court had noted the following grievance which was made in the said writ petition: "The State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, which is appointed for considering such proposal for environmental clearance has a large number of pending applications. The petitioner's application for prior environmental clearance was submitted to the said authority on 15 June 2012. However, the application is still at serial No.296 of the list of applications, from which so far only first ten applications have been considered by Respondent No.3-the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority." 8. Dr. Milind Sathe, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners has therefore submitted that having considered this aspect, this Court has passed orders dated 29 March 2012 and 24 September 2012 directing the Authorities to permit the concerned developers to take up the construction of area not exceeding 20,000 sq. meters for which the concerned developers had obtained approvals from the Municipal Corporation, after getting the undertaking from the developer that the developer shall not exceed construction of 20,000 sq. meters before getting environmental clearance, so that the projects for rehabilitation are not delayed. 9. While deciding the aforesaid matters, this Court had also noted the objection of the learned AGP Mr. Niranjan Pandit that when the project proponent cannot undertake construction project for more than 20,000 sq. meters of built up area without obtaining prior environmental clearance, the project proponent cannot be allowed to commence the construction within the limits of 20,000 sq. meters, without obtaining prior environmental clearance. Niranjan Pandit that when the project proponent cannot undertake construction project for more than 20,000 sq. meters of built up area without obtaining prior environmental clearance, the project proponent cannot be allowed to commence the construction within the limits of 20,000 sq. meters, without obtaining prior environmental clearance. After considering the said submissions, this Court has held that the projects for rehabilitation of slum dwellers or redevelopment projects should not be unnecessarily delayed, even to the extent of construction upto 20,000 sq. meters when the developer is ready to give the undertaking not to exceed the construction beyond 20,000 sq.meters without first obtaining environmental clearance. 10. In the facts of the present case also, we find that 160 families occupying flats constructed by MHADA have moved out and all the buildings in the concerned locality have been demolished. Those families are occupying the transit accommodation of the area only about 200 sq. ft. Once the rehabilitation buildings are constructed, the members will get permanent accommodation to the extent of about 460 sq.ft carpet area. It is, therefore, obvious that members of Petitioner No.1-Society i.e. each of the 160 families is presently required to occupy small area of 200 sq. ft as against the larger areas to the extent of about 460 sq.ft which they would be getting on the construction of rehabilitation buildings, without contributing anything as the developer is required to recover the project cost by constructing free sale buildings. 11. According to the Petitioners, the developer has already incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 21 crores and the developer will not be able to recover any amount unless and until the developer is also allowed to construct and sell the free sale buildings. According to the Petitioners, the Petitioners have already been granted the 100 for constructing 8581.68 sq. meters of built up area plus 1110.24 sq. meters for stair case and lift, totalling 9691.92 sq. meters for rehabilitation buildings. Similarly, the Petitioners have been granted IOD for constructing built up area of 4517.88 sq.meters plus 600 sq. meters for stair case and lift for free sale buildings. Thus the construction proposed to be put up by the Petitioners is not going to exceed 15,000 sq. meters which will be much less than 20,000 sq. meters of built up area which a person can construct without obtaining environmental clearance from SEIAA. meters for stair case and lift for free sale buildings. Thus the construction proposed to be put up by the Petitioners is not going to exceed 15,000 sq. meters which will be much less than 20,000 sq. meters of built up area which a person can construct without obtaining environmental clearance from SEIAA. When the Petitioners are standing in a long queue and the Petitioners application is not likely to be decided for quite some time, no useful purpose will be served by not permitting the Petitioners to put up any construction even upto 15,000 sq. meters. We, therefore, find considerable substance in the submission of the learned senior counsel for the Petitioners. 12. We also find substance in the submission of Dr. Sathe, learned senior counsel for the Petitioners that the case of residential buildings does not stand on the same footing as other projects like Power Generation Project where parties may not be allowed to put up any construction without getting prior environmental clearance. The proposed construction is to be up on the land which already had MHADA buildings for the last more than 20 years. 13. Chamber Summons (Lodging) No.20/2013 has been filed by three applicants who are members of Petitioner No.1-society. According to the said applicants, the developer should not have been granted the development rights by Petitioner No.1-society. 14. Dr. Sathe, learned counsel for the Petitioners has opposed the chamber summons and submitted that apart from the fact that the applicants are only three out of 160 members, the applicants had filed various other proceedings challenging the development agreement between Petitioner No.1-society and Petitioner No.2-developer, and challenging NOC granted by MHADA and IOD granted by the Municipal Corporation, but in all those proceedings, the Courts have negatived their contentions. Reliance is placed on judgment dated 10 April 2012 of this Court in Appeal from Order No.378/2012, judgment dated 16 April, 2012 in Writ Petition No.87 of 2012 of this Court and also order dated 8 February 2012 passed by the Cooperative Court, Mumbai below Exhibit "5" in Case No. CC/II/272 of 2011 and also judgment dated 21 February, 2012 of the City Civil Court in Notice of Motion No.358/2012 in L. C. SuitNo.568/2012. 15. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to allow the chamber summons for joining three members of Petitioner No.1-society when overwhelming majority of the other 157 members out of 160 have decided to go for redevelopment and all the buildings constructed by MHADA have been demolished. The three members cannot be allowed to stall the redevelopment project. In the present Petition, we are only concerned with the limited question as to whether the Petitioners should be allowed to construct upto 15,000 sq. meters without getting environmental clearance. 16. For the reasons already recorded earlier in similar matters, we are inclined to accept the Petitioners submission' that when the Petitioners do not propose to put up construction in excess of 20,000 sq. meters and environmental clearance is required from the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority only when the built up area is to exceed 20,000 sq. meters, no useful purpose will be served by not granting the reliefs as prayed for by the Petitioners. As indicated earlier, the Municipal Corporation has also issued IODs for rehabilitation buildings as well as for free sale buildings. The Municipal Corporation shall, therefore, consider the Petitioners application for commencement certificate on the basis of the amended IODs and such commencement certificate shall not in any case be for construction in excess of 15,000 sq.meters. We record the undertaking being given on behalf of the Petitioners that they will not put up construction in excess of 15,000 sq. meters as the Petitioners have already been granted IODs for construction upto 14809.8 sq. meters. 17. We make it clear that the area for which the Petitioners have been granted IODs as indicated in the affidavit dated 12 December, 2012 of Nance Silva, shall be subject to verification of the area by the concerned Municipal Authorities but the Petitioners' application for commencement certificate shall be considered without requiring the Petitioners to produce the environmental clearance from the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. 18. Before parting with the matter, we cannot help placing on record our concern about the impact of the CRZ Regulations, 2011 and their implementation on development of Mumbai. 18. Before parting with the matter, we cannot help placing on record our concern about the impact of the CRZ Regulations, 2011 and their implementation on development of Mumbai. While there can be no two opinions about the need to preserve ecology, one cannot overlook the fact that Mumbai, the commercial capital of the country, is an island city, already having thousands of structures within 500 meters and 1000 meters of the coast for several decades, even before coming into force of the CRZ Regulations of 1991 which are now replaced by CRZ Regulations of 2011. For regulating the development of Mumbai, therefore, the Ministry of Environment & Forest may consider appropriate regulatory measures which need not necessarily be the regulatory measures applicable to the other coastal areas. In the last two years, this Court has come across several cases, where the parties have to wait for long for environmental clearances from State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) or Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) for constructions on lands which were already having residential buildings for several decades. As noted in our order dated 24 September 2012 (quoted in para 7 hereinabove), during three months between 15 June 2012 to 24 September 2012, only 10 out of 300 pending applications were decided by SEIAA. Similarly, in our order dated 14 June, 2012 in Writ Petition No.1047 of 2012, we had noted that for redeveloping a residential building on land admeasuring only 473 sq. meters (new survey No.1575 of Shivaji Park, Mahim Division) in CRZ II area, in place of old dilapidated and cessed building constructed prior to 1 September, 1940, the occupants of the building and the developer had to wait for a long period. In that order, we had quoted from the article in the Economist of 9 June, 2012 (pages 69 to 70) titled "Property in Mumbai The minimum city"– "Rules inhibit new construction near the coast. Because of the thicket of red tape and litigation, only 3% of 15,000 rent-controlled buildings have been redeveloped.". 19. Non-appreciation of the above important aspects has been only retarding the growth of infrastructure as well as residential and commercial buildings in the city of Mumbai. Because of the thicket of red tape and litigation, only 3% of 15,000 rent-controlled buildings have been redeveloped.". 19. Non-appreciation of the above important aspects has been only retarding the growth of infrastructure as well as residential and commercial buildings in the city of Mumbai. While all such developments have to be properly regulated, it would be in the fitness of things if the State Government takes up the matter with the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment & Forests for evolving a separate regulatory regime for Coastal Zone Management in Mumbai. 20. Since the learned Advocate General was also present in the Court when this petition was heard and decided, the learned Advocate General has agreed to convey the above observations to the appropriate authorities in the State Government. 21. The Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.