Not conspired with Maha CM for Sea Rock renovation: IHL

In an affidavit filed before the Bombay High Court, the company said it has neither cheated the Maharashtra government nor had any such motives and no irregularities have been committed while permissions were given by the state and civic body for the reconstruction.

The affidavit was filed in reply to a public interest litigation filed by lawyer and activist Sonia Sood, alleging that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation had sanctioned plans using clauses under both Development Control Regulations (DCR) of 1967 and 1991.

According to Sood, the civic body could clear plans under only one DCR. She also alleged that two of the city surveys - sub-plots were exclusively earmarked for car parking and those could not be used for any other purpose and one of the sub-plots completely falls within the sea where no construction could be carried out.

"We deny the allegations made by the petitioner. We do not have any nefarious, discreditable or scandalous motive of cheating the government. We have not adopted any unscrupulous means to procure sanctions," the affidavit filed by Rafiq Sayed, constituted attorney of Indian Hotels Ltd said.

Denying allegations of irregularities, the affidavit further says, "The government has not shown or given any undue largesse to the company. We also deny that Indian Hotels has colluded or connived with the then chief minister (Ashok Chavan)."

According to Sood, the government had granted lease of the land to Elel Hotels and Investments, and under the lease deed the company had been prohibited from transferring the property to any third party. She alleged that the property has, however, been transferred several times and the Indian Hotels Company was its fourth owner and in all these transactions, the state government had lost revenue by way of premium to the tune of Rs 350 crore per transaction.

Responding to this, the affidavit said Elel Hotels and Investments was part of Indian Hotels Ltd and hence question of transferring property to a third party does not arise.

A division bench of Justices S A Bobade and R G Ketkar adjourned hearing of the petition till September 27, after additional solicitor general Kevic Setalvad, appearing for the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), and Raju Subramanium for BMC sought time to file reply.