Bombay High Court
The Tadeshwar Wadi Co-Operative ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 8 February, 2013
Author: A.M. Khanwilkar
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, K. K. Tated
vss
wp.2403.2012.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
WRIT PETITION NO.2403 OF 2012
The Tadeshwar Wadi Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
through Government Pleader
High Court, Mumbai
2. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Mahapalika Bhavan, CST, Mumbai - 1
3. Municipal Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Mahapalika Bhavan, CST, Mumbai - 1
4. Assistant Municipal Commissioner
(Ward Officer), G-North Ward, Dadar (W)
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Mumbai-1
5. The Assistant Engineer
Building & Factory Department
G-North Ward, Municipal Corporation
of Greater Mumbai, Dadar (W), Mumbai
6. Dy.Commissioner of Police (Zone V)
Worli Police Station, 5th floor,
Dr.A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai-18
7. The Senior Inspector of Police
Mahim Police Station, Mahim (W)
Mumbai-16
8. Chief Fire officer
Fire Brigade Department
Municipal office, E-Ward, Byculla
Mumbai
vss 1 of 19
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:42 :::
wp.2403.2012.sxw
9. United Shelters Pvtd. Ltd.
1404, Arcadia, NCPA Marg, Nariman Point
Mumbai-21
10. Smt.Polamma Timmappa
A1, F.P. No.425, TPS III,
The Tadeshwar Wadi CHS Ltd.
Mogal Lane, Mahim, Mumbai
11. Mallikarjun S. Bedar
C-5, FP No.425 TPS III,
The Tadeshwar Wadi CHS Ltd.
Mogal Lane, Mahim, Mumbai
12. Smt. Malamma Daniel Devral
D1, F.P. No.425, TPS III
The Tadeshwar Wadi CHS Ltd.
Mogal Lane, Mahim, Mumbai
13. Ramesh D. Devral
D2, F.P. No.425, TPS III
The Tadeshwar Wadi CHS Ltd.
Mogal Lane, Mahim, Mumbai
14. Suresh D. Devral
D2, F.P. No.425, TPS III
The Tadeshwar Wadi CHS Ltd.
Mogal Lane, Mahim, Mumbai
15. Shri Chandra Belly
C16, F.P. No.425, TPS III
The Tadeshwar Wadi CHS Ltd.
Mogal Lane, Mahim, Mumbai
16. Vijaylaxmi Saudanoor
C18, F.P. No.425, TPS III
The Tadeshwar Wadi CHS Ltd.
Mogal Lane, Mahim, Mumbai
17. Emanuel Goshi
C20, F.P. No.425, TPS III
The Tadeshwar Wadi CHS Ltd.
Mogal Lane, Mahim, Mumbai ... Respondents
vss 2 of 19
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:42 :::
wp.2403.2012.sxw
Mr.Joaquim Reis, Sr.Advocate with R.C. Sequeira i/b Maniar Srivastava
Asso. for Petitioner
Ms.Anjali Helekar, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 & 7
Mr.S.U. Kamdar, Sr.Advocate with Ms.K.R. Punjabi for Resp. Nos.2 to 6
Mr.H.T. Pawar for Resp. Nos.10 & 11
Ms.Sonal i/b I.R. Joshi & co. for Resp. No.14
Ms.Uma Wagle for Resp. Nos.15 & 17
CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR &
K. K. TATED, JJ.
JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON: 4.2.2013
JUDGEMENT DELIVERED ON: 8.2.2013
JUDGEMENT (PER A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.):
1. Heard Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent.
Respondents waive notice through their respective Counsel.
3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in substance, is for issuance of directions to the officials of the Corporation to take follow-up action on the basis of notices issued u/s 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') and to facilitate the officials of the Corporation to do so, the police authorities be directed to provide necessary logistical support.
vss 3 of 19
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:42 :::
wp.2403.2012.sxw
4. Briefly stated, the petitioner - Society has been formed by the occupants of the tenaments in the building. There are 62 members in the petitioner - Society out of which 51 members were residing in a building having four wings marked as A, B, C and D. The rest of the members of the petitioner - Society were in chawl structures of ground floor in 11 rooms on land bearing C.S. Nos.781 (part) situated at Mogal Lane, Mahim (West), Mumbai. It is not in dispute that the Corporation has repeatedly issued notices u/s 354 of the said Act to remove the structure occupied by the members of the petitioner - Society having become dilapidated and dangerous. In the context of the said action taken by the Corporation, it is not necessary to highlight other factual matrix referred to in the Writ Petition or the reply affidavit except to observe that the building in question is part of the larger redevelopment project which according to the petitioner - Society and the Developer has been sanctioned by the Appropriate Authority.
5. The first notice issued by the Corporation u/s 354 is dated 7.8.2007 to carry out extensive and structural repairs / replacements.
The second notice u/s 354 of the said Act was issued by the Corporation in respect of the said structure, as served on the petitioner, is dated 1.3.2008, requiring the petitioner to pull down the dilapidated structure vss 4 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:42 ::: wp.2403.2012.sxw referred to therein. Lastly, a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner -
Society by the Corporation u/s 354 of the Act on 21.3.2012 to remove the building referred to in the notice which was found to be in dilapidated and dangerous condition. Later on, the Corporation requested the police authorities to extend necessary support, who in turn, were of the view that since some of the occupants of the respective tenaments in the building were not willing to vacate the same, it may not be advisable to forcibly remove them to facilitate the demolition of the building inspite of its dangerous condition. The Corporation eventually gave individual notices dated 11.6.2012 u/s 354 of the said Act to all the occupants of the building including Respondent Nos.10 to 17, who were unwilling to vacate the tenaments in the said building occupied by them. Inspite of the individual notices, respondent Nos.10 to 17 did not vacate the respective premises occupied by them. As a result, the petitioner -
Society could not proceed with the demolition of the building inspite of the successive notices received from the Corporation u/s 354 of the Act.
At the same time, the Corporation as well as the police authorities did not take notices issued u/s 354 to its logical end on an erroneous understanding that they have no power to demolish the structure referred to in the notice u/s 354 of the said Act. Because of this stalemate situation, the petitioner - Society has approached this Court by way of Writ Petition filed on 1.10.2012. It is noticed that during the vss 5 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:42 ::: wp.2403.2012.sxw pendency of this petition, some portion of the building has collapsed.
On account of this development, even the remaining building has become vulnerable and likely to collapse at any point of time. For this reason, the hearing of the petition was required to be expedited.
6. We have heard Counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the validity of the notices issued u/s 354 of the said Act have not been challenged by the private respondents. According to the petitioner -
Society, there is explicit provision in the said Act investing power in the Corporation to remove dangerous building and moreso, an obligation to do so once the Corporation identifies the building as dilapidated and dangerous, especially when the petitioner - Society, who is the owner of the building, expresses inability to do so inspite of repeated notices u/s 354 of the said Act because of the resistance of some occupants of the building. Further, the police authorities are under obligation to provide logistical support to the officials of the Corporation whilst the demolition of the building takes place, particularly, because of the resistance of some of the occupants in that behalf. Counsel for the petitioner in support of their arguments, has relied on the unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Whiz Enterprises Private Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, Original Side Writ Petition (Lodging) No.28 of 2009 decided on 30.6.2009.
vss 6 of 19
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:43 :::
wp.2403.2012.sxw
7. The petition is resisted by respondent Nos.10, 11, 15 and 17 through their respective Counsel. The stand of the said respondents, who are incidentally occupants and have refused to vacate the tenaments occupied by them, is that, the building required to be removed as per notice u/s 354 is the subject matter of larger redevelopment scheme. For that reason, the occupants are justified in not vacating the tenaments in their possession until the Developer complies with the conditions and stipulations stated in the Government Resolution dated 3.1.2009 issued by the State Government in exercise of powers u/s 79A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'MCS Act'). According to the said respondents, as per section 79A(3) of the MCS Act, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies must be satisfied that each of the conditions and stipulations contained in the G.R. dated 3.1.2009 is fully complied in all respects such as providing bank guarantee of the requisite amount and procedure for selection of Developer, etc. In addition, the private respondents raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition having been filed by the office bearers of the Managing Committee of the petitioner - Society, whose term had already expired on 5.8.2012 whereas, the petition has been filed on 1.10.2012. The office bearers had no locus and authority to file this Writ Petition.
8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Corporation would vss 7 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:43 ::: wp.2403.2012.sxw contend that the petitioner being owner of the building in question, has alternative and efficacious remedy u/s 507 of the said Act for which reason this Court should be loath to entertain the present Writ Petition.
On merits, the Counsel for the Corporation would submit that the power to evict any occupant pursuant to notice u/s 354 of the said Act does not vest in the Corporation. The only option open is for the owner to approach the Small Causes Court for issuance of appropriate direction, as may be required. To buttress this submission, Counsel for the Corporation relied on sections 488A r/w 354RE, 378C or 378F, which expressly invest such power in the Corporation. In other words, the Corporation has expressed its inability to take any further coercive measures on the basis of the notice u/s 354 of the said Act for want of power to evict the occupants i.e., respondent Nos.10 to 17 and then to remove the structure or facilitate the petitioner - Society to do so.
9. We shall first deal with the preliminary objection raised by the private respondents. No doubt, it is common ground that the term of the then Managing Committee of the petitioner - Society had expired on 5.8.2012. The question is whether the petition filed by the office bearers of the said Managing Committee of the petitioner - Society, whose term had expired is competent and can be entertained. The present petition had been registered on 1.10.2012; but before that two crucial developments took place. For, before the expiry of the term of the then vss 8 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:43 ::: wp.2403.2012.sxw Managing Committee of the petitioner - Society, the Government in exercise of power u/s 73(1)(b) of the MCS Act issued orders postponing the elections of all the cooperative societies vide G.R. dated 27.7.2012.
As a result of that Resolution, the then Managing Committee was expected to continue in office until the newly elected Managing Committee assumed office after the elections to be held soon after the expiry of the period referred to in the said resolution. It would, therefore, follow that the term of the Managing Committee subsisted on the date when the Writ Petition came to be filed on 1.10.2012. In that sense, it is not possible to countenance the objection that the office bearers of the then Managing Committee whose term had already expired on 5.8.2012 had no authority to file the present petition on 1.10.2012. This preliminary objection deserves to be rejected.
10. The other preliminary objection taken by the Corporation is that the petitioner has alternative, efficacious remedy u/s 507 of the said Act. The said provision reads thus:
"507. Remedy of owner of building or land against occupier who prevents his complying with any provisions of this Act.
(1) If the owner of any building or land is prevented by the occupier thereof from complying with any provision of this Act or of any regulation or by-law made under this Act or with any requisition made under this Act or under any such regulation or by-law in respect of such building or land, the owner may apply to the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court.
(2) The said Chief Judge, on receipt of any such application,
vss 9 of 19
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:43 :::
wp.2403.2012.sxw
may make a written order requiring the occupier of the building or land to afford all reasonable facilities to the owner for complying with the said provision or requisition and may also, if he thinks fit, direct that the cost of such application and order be paid by the occupier.
(3) After eight days from the date of any such order, it shall be incumbent on the said occupier to afford all such reasonable facilities to the owner for the purpose aforesaid as shall be prescribed in the said order; and in the event of his continued refusal so to do, the owner shall be discharged, during the continuance of such refusal, from any liability which he would otherwise incur by reason of his failure to comply with the said provision or requisition."
11. On a bare perusal of this provision, it is a remedy available to the owner of a building or land against the occupier who prevents complying with the notice issued by the Corporation. It is an enabling provision, which can be invoked by the owner. That, however, would not absolve the Corporation from discharging its duty to remove the dilapidated and dangerous structure, if the law so provides. Further, on making such application, the Small Causes Court can only direct the occupier of the building or land to afford all reasonable facilities to the owner for complying with the requisition made by the Corporation and that on expiry of eight days from such order, the occupier is obliged to afford all reasonable facilities to the owner. However, if he continued to obstruct the owner, the consequences of failure on the part of the occupier to comply with this direction, is that, the owner stands discharged of the obligation or liability which he would otherwise incur by reason of his vss 10 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:43 ::: wp.2403.2012.sxw failure to comply with the requisition of the Corporation. In other words, the power to be exercised by the Small Causes Court u/s 507 is not to direct the Corporation but only the occupier to afford all reasonable facilities to the owner to comply the notice of the Corporation.
Moreover, if the stand of the petitioners herein is to be accepted, by no standards, the remedy available u/s 507 can be said to be alternative muchless efficacious remedy available to the owner of the building.
Taking any view of the matter, therefore, the argument that remedy available u/s 507 is alternative and efficacious remedy for the nature of reliefs claimed in this petition does not commend to us.
12. That takes us to the merits of the controversy. At the outset, it is essential to underscore that the issue raised in this petition must be confined to the action initiated by the Corporation u/s 354 of the said Act and not mingled with the issue of non-compliance of the stipulations of the redevelopment scheme or the rights of the occupants arising thereunder. We, therefore, do not deem it necessary to deal with the argument that the private respondents are justified in not vacating the premises in their possession until compliance of the conditions and stipulations is specified in G.R. dated 3.1.2009 to govern the redevelopment schemes. The Petitioner - Society has relied on the communication of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, which deals with compliance of all the formalities. Be that as it may, that issue is not vss 11 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:43 ::: wp.2403.2012.sxw relevant and cannot have any impact on the action required to be taken u/s 354 of the said Act by the Corporation, which is completely independent and necessitated because of the unstable condition of the building or the building becoming dangerous and threat to the neighborhood. Once the Local Authority is satisfied that the building has become dilapidated and dangerous, it is obliged to issue notice u/s 354 of the said Act. The said provision reads thus:
354. Removal of structures, etc., which are in ruins or likely to fall.
(1) If it shall at any time appear to the Commissioner that any structure (including under this expression any building, wall or other structure and anything affixed to or projecting from, any building, wall or other structure) is in a ruinous condition, or likely to fall, or in any way dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by such structure or any other structure or place in the neighbourhood thereof, the Commissioner may, by written notice, require the owner or occupier of such structure to pull down, secure or repair such structure, subject to the provisions of section 342 and to prevent all cause of danger therefrom.
(2) The Commissioner may also if he thinks fit, require the said owner or occupier, by the said notice, either forthwith or before proceeding to pull down, secure or repair the said structure, to set up a proper and sufficient hoard or fence for the protection of passers by and other persons, with a convenient platform and handrail, if there be room enough for the same and the Commissioner shall think the same desirable, to serve as a footway for passengers outside of such hoard or fence."
13. No doubt, subsection (1) merely authorises the Commissioner to give written notice requiring the owner or occupier of the structure to pull down, secure or repair such structure subject to provisions of section vss 12 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:43 ::: wp.2403.2012.sxw 342 of the Act and to prevent all cause of danger therefrom. It does not expressly mention about the power of the Corporation to enter upon such building or to remove the same. The question is: whether there are other enabling provisions empowering the Commissioner or the officials of the Corporation to take the notice issued u/s 354 to its logical end. In the case of M/s.Whiz Enterprises (supra), the Division Bench directed the Corporation to take the notice issued u/s 354 of the said Act to its logical end in accordance with law forthwith. On the same lines, the petitioners are inviting directions against the Corporation in the present petition.
14. Counsel for the Corporation, however, attempted to distinguish this decision on the argument that the observations contained in this unreported decision cannot be treated as binding precedent as it does not refer to the crucial aspect that section 354, by itself, does not provide for any further power to the Corporation to forcibly evict the occupants of the building and demolish the building merely because it has become dilapidated and dangerous, unlike the provisions contained in section 488A of the Act, which provision is limited to notices u/s 354RE, 378C or 378F of the Act.
15. In the context of this submission, let us now turn to section 488A vss 13 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:43 ::: wp.2403.2012.sxw of the Act. The same came into force after the amendment inserted by Bom. 34 of 1954. It is a separate provision under the heading "power of eviction" contained in Chapter XIX of the said Act, which deals with procedure. Relying on this provision, it was contended that this is a special provision enacted by the Legislature to give limited power to the Commissioner of the Corporation to proceed to evict the occupant and get the building or part thereof vacated for effectuating the action u/s 354RE, 378C and 378F and in no other situation. No such power has been invested in the Commissioner with regard to the action u/s 354 of the Act simplicitor. The argument, though attractive, at the first blush, will have to be stated to be rejected. It is noticed that by the amending Act (Bom. 13 of 1933), the Legislature introduced new Chapter XII-A, sections 354RE, 378C and 378F. Section 354RE is part of the said Chapter. That provision is under sub-heading "clearance areas" in the said Chapter. The provision enables the Commissioner having acquired any land comprised in or surrounded by or adjoining a clearance area to cause every building thereon to be vacated. Since this is a completely different situation in which the Commissioner is required to get the premises vacated, an express provision empowering the Commissioner to do so was necessitated in the form of section 488A of the Act.
16. Notably, we are dealing with the situation covered by section 354 vss 14 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:43 ::: wp.2403.2012.sxw of the Act. The corresponding provision about the duties and powers of the Municipal Authorities amongst others, of removal of structures, which are in ruins or likely to fall, can be traced to section 61(l) in Chapter III. Chapter III deals with duties and powers of municipal authorities. The obligatory and discretionary duties of the Corporation have been spelt out in this Chapter. Section 61 of the Act envisages that it shall be incumbent on the Corporation to make adequate provision, by any means or measures which it is lawfully competent to them to use or to take, inter alia, for securing or removal of dangerous buildings and places, as referred to in clause (l). On conjoint reading of section 61(l) with section 354, there is hardly any doubt that the Commissioner has complete power to make adequate provision by any means or measures which it is lawfully competent for removal of dangerous buildings and places. The existence of power in the Corporation to do so, is coupled with the duty to ensure that the structure in ruins or is likely to fall should be removed with utmost dispatch and the Corporation cannot extricate itself by merely issuing notice to the owner or occupier of such structure or for that matter, inability to remove the structure because of the non-
cooperation of either the owner or occupier. The power given to the Corporation to remove structures in ruins or likely to fall is in public interest. To buttress the proposition that the Corporation has ample powers to initiate action of evicting occupants and demolishing the vss 15 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:43 ::: wp.2403.2012.sxw structure, which is in ruins or likely to fall, can be traced even to section 489 of the said Act, which finds place in Chapter XIX dealing with the procedure. Section 489 is found in sub-heading enforcement of orders to execute work. The same reads thus:
489. Works, etc. which any person is required to execute may in certain cases be executed by the Commissioner at such person's cost.
(1) When any requisition or order is made, by written notice by the Commissioner or by any municipal officer empowered under section 68 in this behalf, under any section, sub-section or clauses of this Act mentioned in sub-section (2), a reasonable period shall be prescribed in such notice for carrying such requisition or order into effect, and if, within the period so prescribed, such requisition or order or any portion of such requisition or order is not complied with the Commissioner may take such measures or cause such work to be executed or such thing to be done as shall, in his opinion be necessary for giving due effect to the requisition or order so made; and, unless it is in this Act otherwise expressly provided, the expenses thereof shall be paid by the person or by any one of the persons to whom such requisition or order was addressed.
(2) The sections, sub-sections and clauses of this Act referred to in sub-section (1) are the following, namely:--
Section 230, subsection (5) Section 305.
Section 231. Section 308, sub-section (2).
Section 232. Section 309, sub-section (1).
Section 233, clause (b). Section 311.
Section 223A, clause (b) Section 315.
Section 243, sub-section (2) Section 325.
Section 248, sub-section (1) Section 326, sub-section (3).
Section 249A Section 327, sub-section (1),
clause (d).
Section 257. Section 328, sub-section (3).
Section 271, sub-section (2). Section 328A, sub-section (3).
Section 272, sub-section (5). Section 329, sub-section (1)
Section 274, sub-sections (1) and (1A). Section 334, sub-section (1).
Section 274A, sub-sections (1) and (2). Section 338, sub-section (2).
Section 278. Section 352.
Section 353. Section 380.
Section 354. Section 381
Section 363, sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4). Section 381A, sub-section (2).
Section 375. Section 382.
Section 375A. Section 383, sub-section (1).
Section 376. Section 392, sub-section (1).
Section 377. Section 405.
Section 377A. Section 425, sub-section
(3) The Commissioner may take any measure, execute any work or cause
anything to be done under this section, whether or not the person who has failed to comply with the requisition or order is liable top punishment or has been prosecuted or sentenced to any punishment for such failure.
(emphasis supplied)
vss 16 of 19
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:43 :::
wp.2403.2012.sxw
17. On a bare perusal of this provision, it is noticed that the Commissioner after waiting for a reasonable period after giving written notice, has power to take such measures to ensure that the requisition issued by him is complied with by taking such measures or cause such work to be executed or required to be done at the expenses of the person, who was obliged to comply with the requisition. Subsection (2) of section 489 refers to requisition issued, inter alia, u/s 354 by the Commissioner. Sub-section (3) further obliges the Commissioner to take any measure, execute any work or cause anything to be done under that section irrespective of whether the person fails to comply with the requisition or order or liable for punishment for such failure. The expenses to be incurred by the Commissioner to discharge the obligation u/s 489 r/w 61(l) of the said Act is to be recovered in the manner prescribed in section 491. For discharging the said duty, the Municipal Commissioner is free to take cooperation of police as per section 522 of the said Act. Section 522 predicates that the Police Commissioner on receipt of such request must provide logistical support to the officials of the Corporation.
18. Considering the setting in which the provisions are placed and the purport of those provisions, we have no manner of doubt that even though the primary obligation is on the owner and occupier to act upon vss 17 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:43 ::: wp.2403.2012.sxw the requisition of the Corporation issued u/s 354 of the Act in relation to the structure in ruins or likely to fall, but that does not extricate the Corporation from its duty to remove such structure in public interest at the earliest. In doing so, the Corporation may have to resort to eviction of the occupants but that drastic action would be of a far lesser degree than the loss or damage to be caused in the neighborhood on account of sudden collapse of the dilapidated and dangerous building. Indeed, in the unreported decision in M/s.Whiz Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the efficacy of these provisions has not been specifically dealt with.
However, for the reasons already noted, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the petitioner - Society is justified in seeking direction against the Corporation for its inaction to take successive notices issued u/s 354 of the said Act to its logical end by removing the dilapidated and dangerous structure referred to therein. For facilitating the officials of the Corporation to discharge this duty, we have no manner of doubt that the police authorities would extend adequate logistical support to them, if so demanded and as may be warranted, which is the obligation of the police authorities u/s 522 of the Act.
19. Accordingly, we allow this Writ Petition and direct the Corporation to take the last notice issued to the Petitioner by the Corporation dated 21.3.2012 as also the individual notices dated 11.6.2012 given to the vss 18 of 19 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:43 ::: wp.2403.2012.sxw occupants, who have still not vacated the premises in their possession, to its logical end, in accordance with law, forthwith and in doing so, may take assistance of the local police authorities, who are obliged to provide all logistical support to the officials of the Corporation.
20. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(K. K. TATED, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.)
vss 19 of 19
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:38:43 :::