Oral Judgment (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respective Respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The Petitioners' (a developer under the SRA scheme) grievance is about non-granting them of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance on the property bearing CTS No.30(Part) and 31 (Part) of Village Juhu and CTS No. 195(Part) of Revenue Village Andheri at Andheri (West), though their Application/Representation is pending before Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 since long. 3. After hearing both the parties and after considering the judgments so cited by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties, it is clear that the defence of the Respondent authorities is that NCZMA is in process of preparing a New Coastal Zone Management Plan for Mumbai region and Raigad District. This Court has decided the issue in following words: “8. The respondents have not disputed the correctness of the aforesaid map. Only defence of the respondents is the defence which was raised in Writ Petition No.647 of 2012 (Rustomjee Realty Private Limited and another vs. Union of India and others decided on 25 March 2013) and Writ Petition No. 593 of 2013 (Om Prakash & Company and another Vs. Union of India and others decided on 17th June 2013). The defence of the respondent authorities was that NCZMA is in the process of preparing a New Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Mumbai region and Raigad district and, therefore, till such plan is prepared and finalized, the MCZMA and NCZMA should not issue any coastal clearance. After considering such defence, in our order dated 17 June 2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 593 of 2013, we have held as under: “16. It appears that the NCZMA is in the process of preparing a New Coastal Zone Management Plan for the Mumbai region and Raigad district. The question is whether the respondent-authorities should be permitted to stop the petitioner-developer from proceeding with the construction as per the approved Municipal plans on the ground that the new Coastal Zone Management Plan is not yet prepared, published and implemented. 17. It is clear that the petitioner's case is not borderline case, with uncertainties whether the land would fall in CRZ area in the new Coastal Zone Management Plan. 17. It is clear that the petitioner's case is not borderline case, with uncertainties whether the land would fall in CRZ area in the new Coastal Zone Management Plan. The present case is a clear case that while measuring CRZ area, instead of taking the creek as the tidal body, sea was erroneously taken as the tidal body. The MCZMA's view in favour of the petitioner is based on the survey conducted by National Institute of Oceanography (NIO) Goa, and Center for Earth Science and Studies (CESS) Trivendrum, both expert agencies recognized by NCZMA. “The doubt about dusk is not the doubt about noon”(Salmond on Jurisprudence). 18. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the MCZMA has already found that the land in question does not fall within the distance indicated in the CRZ Notifications dated 9 February, 1991 and 6 January 2011 and NCZMA is not in a position to dispute this finding, the society with 480 members which has already demolished its old tenements, cannot be asked to wait for one more year, merely because NCZMA and MCZMA are going to revise Coastal Zone Management Plan in accordance with the self same CRZ Notifications. 19. Accordingly, we allow the petition and the Municipal Corporation for Gr. Mumbai is directed to consider the petitioner's application for FSI as is permissible under the Development Control Regulations for the layout on the basis that the land in question falls out side the CRZ area.” 9. The learned Counsel for the respondents are not in a position to dispute that the present case is covered by the aforesaid order. 10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the defence raised by the respondents is the same which was raised in Writ Petition No. 647 of 2012 and Writ Petition No. 593 of 2013. Following our decision in the aforesaid writ Petitions, we allow this Writ Petition and direct Slum Rehabilitation Authority to consider the petitioner's application for FSI as is permissible under the Development control Regulations for the layout on the basis that the petitioners' land in question falls outside the CRZ area.” 4. This Court in other similarly placed matters on same issue/objection after hearing the parties directed the concerned Respondents to consider the similarly placed Petitioners' representation. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. This Court in other similarly placed matters on same issue/objection after hearing the parties directed the concerned Respondents to consider the similarly placed Petitioners' representation. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not in a position to dispute and or deny the position of law declared by this Court. 6. There is no denial also with regard to the similarity of facts and the issue involved in the present matter. There is no dispute with regard to CTS No. 195 which was in consideration in earlier judgments, except the CTS numbers in question. 7. We have seen the map which is annexed at page 81. There is no denial to the affect that the map is prepared by the authorized and recognized Agency viz., Institute of Remote Sensing, Anna University, Chennai-600 025. There is no dispute with regard to the correctness of the map. 8. In defence, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have filed Reply and are not in a position to deny the findings/judgment/decision given by this Court as referred to above. The only submission is that they will consider the case of the Petitioners in accordance with law laid down by this Court and as per the prescribed policy of SRA. 9. Therefore, taking an over all view of the matter and in view of the decision given by this Court, we are inclined to observe that the Petitioners have made out a case for grant of relief on similar line/direction as passed by this Court in various judgments so recorded above. 10. Therefore, we allow this Writ Petition and direct Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to consider the Petitioners' Application for FSI in respect of property bearing CTS Nos. 30 (Part), 31(Part), Juhu, and CTS No. 195 (Part) of Revenue Village Andheri at Andheri (West) as is permissible under the Development Control Regulations for the layout on the basis that the petitioners' land in question to the extent as indicated in map falls out the CRZ area. 11. The Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.