MUMBAI, April 10 -- The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging approvals granted by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to construct an 18-storey residential tower while redeveloping a three-storey structure at Altamount Road in Malabar Hill. The petitioner, the Altamount Road Area Citizen Committee, alleged numerous violations in the sanctioned plan and redevelopment of the property. The court, however, held that no genuine public interest was involved in the matter. "This writ petition bearing the mask of a public interest litigation seems to be intended to stall the construction of the subject building," said the division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Suman Shyam, while dismissing the PIL. "The motive behind filing of this public interest litigation is not in doubt and there is a clear objective in making 15th respondent, the developer, a target of attack and there is no genuine public interest involved in this matter," the bench said The Altamount Road Area Citizens Committee had filed the PIL through its chairperson, Capt Ashok Batra, and member Bhuvneshwari Kumari Jadeja, claiming there were several violations in sanctioned plans for the redevelopment of the Altamount Road property, and that various concessions had been arbitrarily granted to the developer. Their counsel, senior advocate Darius Shroff, argued that the concessions granted by BMC to the developer had seriously compromised the basic requirements of a 'good life" for the locality's residents. He argued that the "illegal permissions, concessions, approvals" etc given for the construction of the residential building could cause infrastructural difficulties for Altamount Road residents and impact neighbourhood safety and security. He also pointed out that amended plans sanctioned by the civic body virtually left no space for the safe escape of the building's occupants in case of fire or other emergencies. Senior advocate Dr Milind Sathe, representing the BMC, argued that the PIL was based on incomplete and misleading facts and erroneous assumptions regarding the applicability of Development Control Regulations. He claimed the approved building plan strictly followed prevailing regulations. Sathe said there was no violation of regulations and that the "elevation projection" or "lily ponds" - which the petitioner had objected to - were permissible under DCR 35(2)(c). The court accepted the arguments advanced on behalf of the civic body and the developer and dismissed the PIL. The court also discarded apprehensions about danger to the new building's occupants in case of fire or other emergencies after noticing that the margins left around the new building complied with the regulations prevailing when the building plans were approved. "We do not find any basis for such apprehensions," the bench said. "The subject building has inbuilt, in-house fire-fighting systems which are catered with dual power supply and dedicated water-tank for fire extinguishing purposes." The court said they are vested with the discretion to grant such approvals, permissions, relaxations and concessions....