ECF executive members Aruna Nafday and Chandmal Parmar, who, along with the forum coordinator, had filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court demanding that a fresh notification be issued by giving reasons for the move, have stated that apart from the ECF, two other major environmental organisations - Vanarai and Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG) - have decided to file writ petitions if the government holds on to its stand even after having heard the citizens' objections.

All that the high court judges have ruled while dismissing the ECF writ petition on April 20, they said, is that the petition was premature at that stage since the objections were still being heard by the government and that the government had extended the period of accepting suggestions and objections from citizens by another one month (upto May 19).

When advocate general C J Sawant, appearing for the State government contended that the government could not disclose the reason behind the move, their lordships said: ``As the government cannot be called upon to disclose norms, the petitioners and others are at liberty to raise all objections including that there is no public interest.''

In view of the possibility of a fresh legal battle in future, the ECF executive members called upon the citizens to be as accurate as possible in their depositions before the deputy director of town planning.

The hilltops and hillslopes have been earmarked as `green and no development zone' in the development plan. However, when the State government on June 5, 1997, modified the development control (DC) rules for Pune at the request of the municipal corporation, construction not exceeding four per cent of the plot area with ground floor structure without stilts was allowed to accommodate swimming pools, sports and games centres, health clubs, cafeteria or canteens and amusement parks.

Yet, within three weeks, for reasons best known to it - ``We will not be able to run the government if we go on giving reasons for administrative actions,'' the advocate general argued - , the government changed its mind and directed the municipal corporation by its letter on June 27, 1997, to allow constructions upto 20 per cent of the plot area ``for residential use''.

Whenever the government exercises its powers under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning - MR&TP - Act to issue such directives to a civic body, it is presumed that this is done in public interest. No explanation was given in the letter except that owners would be allowed to utilise 20 per cent of the land for residential use ``as an incentive.''

The municipal corporation refused to oblige. Yet the government was adamant. Exercising its statutory powers, the government itself issued a notification on December 8, 1997, which was published in newspapers on December 18 and in the gazette on December 25, and called for suggestions and objections from citizens within one month.

Again, the same arguments were made. This was intended to be an `incentive' to plot owners and that this was being done ``for implementing the development plan proposals in respect of lands shown in green zone/ hilltop and hillslope zone.''

What is this ``incentive'' for, asks the ECF. No development is allowed on the land as per the development plan. The civic body sought to allow recreational use of the land therefore grant constructions upto four per cent, which should be just enough for the purpose, why allow residential constructions five times higher?

The State government in its affidavit filed in the Bombay High Court on April 16 this year in response to the ECF writ petition claims that the State director of town planning examined the proposal of the Pune Municipal Corporation seeking to allow four per cent constructions for recreational purpose recommended that a condition be laid to make it mandatory for the plot owner to plant 400 trees per hectare (160 trees per acre) and that the minimum plot holding be 0.4 ha (one acre).

The government, according to the affidavit, felt that the floor space area (FAR) should be increased from four per cent to 20 per cent ``to meet the cost of plantation, maintenance and proper development of trees.''

``The government further thought it proper that instead of imposing the condition of plantation of 400 trees per hectare, the number of trees shall be increased to 500 trees per hectare.''

``This is ridiculous and deceptive,'' contend Nafday and Parmar. ``Why should five times higher construction be allowed to increase the mandatory tree count by a mere 100 per hectare (or a mere 40 per acre)? Besides, why create a bogey of the cost of plantation and maintenance, which surely is not much?''

But the real catch is elsewhere. The affidavit filed by the State government in the high court creates an impression that construction strictly for recreational purpose is sought to be increased from four per cent to 20 per cent. The same government has admitted in its public notification gazetted on December 25,1997 that ``owners shall be allowed to utilise 20 per cent FAR for residential use''. Where has the residential use come from, the ECF asks. Why was the government discreetly silent on this in its affidavit to the high court on April 16, 1998?

Allowing residential constructions is change of zoning of the land. This has to be made explicitly clear. However, the government notification does not mention intended change of zoning. This is sought to be done on the sly merely by modifying the development control rules. This is prima facie illegal, contends the Forum.

Then the government in its notification of December 25 indicates that this was being done to ``implement the development plan proposals of lands shown in green zone/hilltop, hillslope zone.'' Has the government forgotten that after hearing suggestions and objections from citizens, including those owning plots on hilltops and hillslopes for five years between 1982 and 1987, it had accepted and gazetted the plan proposals in 1987, laying down that there should be no development of any nature on hilltops and hillslopes and that this very State government should have the land acquired for afforestation through its forest department?

``How did it suddenly become `expedient' 11 years later,'' Nafday and Parmar demand to know, ``as the notification of December 25 claims, to allow 20 per cent residential construction to implement development plan proposals?''

``Has the government decided not to acquire the land for afforestation, and why? We will not know this at least at this stage,'' states the ECF, ``as the government in its wisdom has decided to conceal this vital information from citizens.''

Citizens, therefore, should file their objections forcefully with the deputy director of town planning at the central buildings in Pune and be ready for seeking judicial intervention if the government refuses to acknowledge both the blatant illegality of its move and the popular sentiment against it, Nafday and Parmar concluded.