1. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel resumed arguments at 10.45 a.m. and concluded at 11.00 a.m. Thereafter, Mr. Soli J, Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel commenced arguments and concluded 12.30 p.m. Then Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel made arguments for about 10 minutes. Thereafter Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned Senior Counsel made arguments from 12.40 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Thereafter, Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel made arguments upto 3.30 p.m. Thereafter, Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned Senior Counsel made arguments till the Court rose for the day. The matters remained part-heard.

2. Permission to file SLP is granted in SLP (C) No....CC No. 12038/2005. Issue notice. Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-respondents accepts notice.

3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties on grant of interim relief, we direct stay of the operation of para 289(e) of the High Court’s judgment subject to the following:

(a) This interim order shall be at the risk and costs of the applicants.

(1) The petitioners may file applications for grant of sanction of building plans and/or pursue the matter further, if such applications have been filed with the Bombay Municipal Corpora-tion or any other statutory authorities as the case may be. They may in the event buildings plans are sanc-tioned file appropriate application for obtaining environmental clearance and the same may be processed by the Appropriate Authori-ties.

(2) Any further constructions and/or creation of any third-party rights by the mill owners will be at their own risk wherefor they would not claim any equity whatsoever and furthermore the same shall be subject to the orders of the Court. However, any new application for grant of approval of any layouts, issue of IODs or commencement certifications may be processed but no construc-tion shall be carried on pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof.

(3) While passing orders on the applications for sanction in the cases of the applicants who are affected by Clause (e) of the judgment, the Bombay Municipal Corporation and other statutory authorities shall proceed on the basis as if the DCR 58 as amended, in the year 2001 and as clarified by the State of Maharashtra, is in force and not in terms of the impugned judgment.

(4) The applicants may carry on with the demolition works on the property and may for protection of their land raise boundary walls.