MUMBAI: Terming it as harassment to citizens, the Bombay high court recently rapped BMC over the delay in repairs to a building in south Mumbai where the popular eatery Dwarka was located.
Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata on Oct 23 directed the additional municipal commissioner (City) to reply to a second petition filed by Kamath Brothers, partners of Dwarka Restaurant, and other tenants/occupants of shops on the ground floor of the two-storeyed D G Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Kalaghoda, Fort.
In July 2023, BMC’s technical advisory committee categorised the 100-year-old building as C 2-A category – partially unsafe/dangerous requiring major structural repairs. Since the landlord took no steps, in Oct 2023 the petitioners moved HC.
Following HC order, they vacated their shops on Jan 29. On June 28, HC disposed of the petition directing BMC to grant all permissions by July 5 and to start work by Aug 9.
Supreme Court on Aug 5 dismissed the appeal by landlord/owner Irishman Developers Pvt Ltd.
Petitioners’ advocates Aneesa Cheema and Parisha Shah submitted that despite the deadlines, repairs did not commence and the landlord did not comply with BMC’s requisitions. The judges perused the record and were “not only flummoxed but also flabbergasted.” They found that “different assistant engineers of BMC are directing the petitioners and/or the respondent 4 (landlord) to comply with different requisitions at different points of time.”
In July 2023, the assistant engineer (Building and Factory), A ward, issued a notice directing the petitioners and other occupants to comply with four requisitions. In July 2023, the senior architect (Development Planning) Heritage directed the landlord’s architect to comply with five requisitions.
On Aug 6, the assistant engineer (Building Proposal-I) directed the landlord to comply with eleven additional requisitions though some of them were overlapping with the first notice.
The judges were “unable to comprehend the fact” hat when the first notice was issued in July 2023 by the assistant engineer, “why wisdom did not prevail upon him to call upon the petitioners and respondent 4 (landlord) to comply with all the requisitions at one point of time.”
“Prima facie, it appears to us that issuing separate requisitions at different points of time by different authorities is none less than harassment to the citizens,” they added.
To the judge’s query, BMC’s advocate replied that the AMC is the authority under whose territorial jurisdiction the building falls and under whom all the above officers of BMC work. Adjourning the hearing to Nov 21, the judges directed the AMC to file his detailed reply “within 4 weeks from today, without seeking any extension in that behalf.”
