MUMBAI: Bombay HC has found the owners of a ground floor flat in a Pedder Road building guilty of contempt of court for illegally amalgamating an adjoining flat by removing the common wall, violating its orders from nearly 19 years ago. Both flats house a designer clothes store. It also directed the BMC chief to ascertain which officers were responsible for not complying with the civic body’s notices as well as HC’s orders and to spell out the actions against them.
Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata on Tuesday held the design label Libas’s chairman, Nishant Mahimtura, and executive director and fashion designer Riyaz Gangji “guilty of contempt, having brazenly, wilfully, and successfully violated and continue to violate” HC’s June 22, 2006, and Sept 27, 2007, orders. They directed the HC registry to issue a notice to them “to respond to the sentence term and fine” under the Act.
They instructed Mahimtura and Riyaz Gangji “to personally appear” before HC on Feb 18 and file an affidavit explaining why they should not be sentenced under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The bench directed the BMC commissioner to personally file an affidavit that “must contain steps taken to restore the building as per the sanctioned plan, that is, putting up the walls partitioning and/or dividing the two flats as it stood at the time of sanction, to the satisfaction of the society and its members”. The BMC chief has to also ascertain why the partition walls were not restored and why civic officials didn’t approach HC if they faced hurdles.
Sukhshanti CHSL had complained to BMC that its members, Mahimtura and Gangji, owners of a flat on the ground floor, amalgamated an adjoining flat owned by a late member, Dr L Soneji. It said they fixed a door usurping the common area leading to the two flats, installed a shutter to create access to the two flats to the main road, and demolished the dividing walls of the flats, endangering the structural stability of the building.
The society complained to the police and the D-ward office. BMC issued three warning notices to the duo but failed to restore the flats to their original position.
The society filed a suit in April 2006 in the city civil court, which went against the duo. In June 2006, HC permitted BMC to proceed with the demolition notice. Since no action was taken, the society moved HC in Sept 2005.
The society’s advocate said not only did Mahimtura and Gangji ignore BMC’s notices, but the civic body also failed to comply with HC’s June 22, 2006, order that gave it permission to proceed with taking action as well as the Sept 27, 2007, order that directed it to demolish all illegal construction in both flats. Only on Nov 15, 2024, did BMC’s affidavit reveal partial compliance as only the door enclosing the common area was removed by it.
The judges noted that Mahimtura’s Aug 2007 reply said the second flat belonged to Dr Soneji, his late aunt, and he was her heir. He and Gangji claimed the flats were interconnected for more than 25 years, the renovations were legal, and the society permitted it.
They relied on BMC assessment bills to run commercial premises and licences for business sale of garments from the flats. The judges said a licence to carry commercial activity does not amount to permission to change user from residential to commercial, noting that there was no plan or permission attached. This is “clearly an eyewash and misleading”, they said.
HC said Mahimtura and Gangji were responsible for endangering the lives of the society’s members by removing partition walls on the ground floor. “It is the respondents who have flouted the law. They have not obtained any permissions from BMC. They have taken advantage of being adjoining flat owners and illegally usurped late Dr Soneji’s ownership premises without following the due process of law.”
The judges said in the Jan 6, 2025, affidavit Mahimtura showed “no remorse for the illegalities and offences committed by him”. They were “extremely pained and peeved” with BMC for failing to implement the demolition notice in its letter and spirit. Also, BMC ought to have taken police’s help to comply with the court orders. “It appears to us that there is a trend of selective enforcement of the law. Having seen a rise in this trend [for the] past several months, we have appraised the current municipal commissioner as well as the police commissioner to stem this rot… Non-implementation of directions passed by these courts would embolden and encourage offenders and bring the state to anarchy and lawlessness,” Justice Khata wrote for the bench.
