The submissions by government pleader R V Govilkar came when a clutch of eight petitions from various mill owners challenging the February 1996 ban orders by the state government came up for hearing today. Since Standard Industries Ltd was the first in the bunch, with the state government's nod to its projects, nothing survived of its petition and it was dismissed.

Standard Industries had claimed that it was ``erroneously'' being put in the same bracket as other textile mills that attracted the ban orders of February 1996. It was the case of Standard Industries, thathad changed its name from Standard Mills Co Ltd in 1989, that it was not a sick mill nor a closed cotton mill or any mill that needed to sell land for redevelopment or modernisation. The company claimed that it was not a cotton textile mill but a company that among other things owns a textile mill.

The applications for construction by Standard Industries relate to a plot of land, admeasuring 3842.22 sq metres at Prabhadevi that already had a two winged structure, one wing (a ground plus four structure) used as a welfare centre and another wing used as a hall (a ground plus two structure). The plot of the land, was in a commercial zone and it was the argument of the company that it did not attract any provision for change of user for allowing constructions. The company had also claimed that there never was any mill on this land.

The company had already paid Rs 1,93,320 to the BMC in March 19, 1991 as a payment towards lucrative user premium for the plot and construction. In September 1996, the companyforwarded plans for the addition and alteration of the structure that included the construction of extra storeys and make commercial use of the building and land under development control regulations 53 and DC 11 (2), according to the town planning scheme and other regulations on September 6, 1996. However, following the ban orders, the BMC had in a letter dated July 4, 1998 refused to approve the altered plans.

The petition filed by Standard Industries - as with the other petitions filed by Gokuldas Morarjee Mills, Ruby Mills, Hindustan Mills, Prakash Cotton Mills, Bombay Dyeing Mills and two others - challenged the validity of the government's February 29, 1996 order, as per which no building permission of mills would be allowed unless it conformed to the integrated development plan of mill land area which was under preparation. A study group for the plan was also set up.

The petitioners alleged that the plan itself was ultra vires of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. Even though theCharles Correa plan had been submitted, there was no action from the government. However, since the government submitted that it was considering the proposals for each of the other petitioner-mills on an individual basis, and added that the present code of conduct put restrictions on them, the bench did not take any decision on the further hearing of the rest of the petitions that are up for admission.

The direction to the BMC to process the Standard Industries application was opposed by counsel for the Girni Kamgar Sangharsh Samiti, Colin Gonsalves. However, Justice Srikrishna said they were at liberty to get themselves heard before the civic authorities.