Bombay High Court
Sandeep Shivaji Shirke And 34 Ors vs Assistant Engineer Assistant ... on 15 February, 2019
Bench: A.S.Oka, Sarang V.Kotwal
1 oswp874 withpil140.doc
ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.140 OF 2006
Janhit Manch and others ...Petitioners
vs.
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation
and another ...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.874 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.385 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1332 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1664 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2475 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3108 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3278 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3301 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3314 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3316 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3350 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3368 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3390 OF 2017 None for petitioner in PIL/140/2006 Ms Ronita Bhattacharya & Mr.Kranti L.C.for petitioner in WPL/874/2018, WPL/3108/2017, WPL/3301/2017,WPL/3314/2017,WPL/3316/2017, WPL/3350/2017,WPL/3368/2017,WPL/3390/2017, WPL/385/2018 & WPL/2475/18 Mr. Nikhil Patil a/w Mr. Prabhakar Jadhav for petitioner in WPL/3278/2017 Mr. Vinod Sangvikar a/w Mr. Yogesh Morbale for ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 14:31:22 ::: 2 oswp874 withpil140.doc petitioner/applicant in WP/3055/17 and NMW/683/2018 Ms. Juilee Ghadge i/b Mr. Himanshu Kode for Petitioner in WPL/1158/2017, WPL/1332/17, Mr. Prashant V. Malik a/w Mr. Irfan Ansari a/w Mr. Vaibhav Shah i/b Mr. Nilesh Masurkar for petitioner in WP/1664/2018 Mr. A.Y.Sakhare, SR. Counsel a/w Mr. Sagar Patil for respondent BMC Mr. Girish Godbole, Spl. Counsel a/w Ms. Geeta Shastri, Addl.G.P. for respodent State in PIL/140/2006 Mr. Girish Godbole, Spl. Counsel a/w Ms. Geeta Shastri, Addl. G.P. for respondent state in WPL/1158/2017, WP/1664/18 & WPL/2475/18 Mr. Girish Godbole, Spl. Counsel a/w Ms. Deepali Patankar, Asst. to G.P. for res. state in WPL/3314/17 & WPL/3278/17, WPL/3108/17 Mr. Girish Godbole, Spl. Counsel a/w Mr. Hemant Haryan, AGP for respondent state in WPL/3316/17 Mr. Girish Godbole, Spl. Counsel a/w Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, AGP for resp. State in WPL/1332/2017, WPL/3301/2017 & WPL/3350/17 Mr. Girish Godbole, Spl. Counsel a/w Mr. S.B.Gore for respondent state in WPL/3368/17 Mr. Girish Godbole, Spl. Counsel a/w Mr. Manish Upadhyay, AGP for respondent state in WPL/3390/17 Mr. Girish Godbole, Spl. Counsel a/w Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for respondent state in WPL/385/18 Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh for respondent no. 3 in WPL/874/18, WPL/2475/18 & WPL/3353/2018 & for Respondent no. 6 & 7 in WPL/1158/17 & WPL/1332/2017 Mr. A.P.Kulkarni for respondent no. 3 in WPL/1158/17, WPL/1332/17, WPL/3278/17 & for respondent no. 4 in WPL/3108/17, WPL/3314/17, WPL/3316/17, WPL/3350/17, WPL/3368/17, WPL/3390/17 & for respodent no. 5 in WPL/3301/17, Mr. Anoop Patil for respondent no. 4 in WPL/385/18 Ms. Janhavi Rane for respondent no. 5 in WPL/3108/2017 (Mr. V.R.Mankar, Sub-Engineer, Estate Department, Mr. V.V.Salunkhe, Jr. Engineer, Maintenance M/W & Mr. G.B.Deshmukh, Jr. Engineer (E) Electrical M/w are present) ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 14:31:22 ::: 3 oswp874 withpil140.doc CORAM : A.S.OKA, & SARANG V.KOTWAL DATE : FEBRUARY 15, 2019 P.C.:
1 In Writ Petition No.874 of 2018, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation for some time on the joint inspection report. The learned senior counsel for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation on instructions of 1) Shri V.R.Mankar, Sub Engineer, Estate Department, 2) V.V.Salunkhe, Junior Engineer, Maintenance Department and 3)Mr.G.B.Deshmukh, Junior Engineer, Electrical Department, M/W ward states that though the Mumbai Municipal Corporation is not accepting the correctness of the joint inspection report and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation is not a signatory to the same, nevertheless the Municipal Officers will visit all the premises in the buildings in which the work of repairs is stated to be complete but the report records that certain work is incomplete. We accept the said statement. Needless to add that if the Officers accept that certain work is incomplete, immediate steps shall be taken to get the work done from the concerned Contractor.
2 There is one issue regarding the status of the lifts in the buildings. It is claimed by the petitioners that either the lifts are not working or the working lifts are inadequate. There is a reply filed by Shri Prithviraj Chauhan, Assistant ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 14:31:22 :::
4 oswp874 withpil140.doc Commissioner, M/W Ward. Paragraph 9 deals with the said reply. To resolve the issue, we direct the State Government to instruct the Lift Inspector or Inspectors of the concerned area to visit the buildings which are described on page 544 of the affidavit of Shri Prithviraj Chauhan and find out the condition of the lifts only in the said buildings.
3 The report of the Lift Inspectors shall be submitted to the Court on the next date. We may clarify here that the Lift Inspectors will take inspection of the lifts in the occupied buildings.
4 On the next date, the Municipal Corporation will file an affidavit indicating status of the premises inspected by them till the next date as per the statement recorded above.
5 Place the petition under the caption of `Directions' on 8th March 2019. We put the respondents to notice that Writ Petition (L) No.874 of 2018 will be taken up either for final hearing or for passing further interim orders. We also put the respondents to notice that we propose to hear the parties on the issue of further directions for the implementation of the directions issued in the main disposed of PIL. Large number of structures are still not demolished as it is not possible to provide alternate accommodation to the eligible persons due to various reasons.
::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 14:31:22 :::5 oswp874 withpil140.doc 6 It is not in dispute that all the persons who were occupying the residential premises which were demolished have been given residential premises at Mahul of the same area irrespective of the respective areas of their original structures. If the project affected persons were to take premises of having the same area which are allotted at Mahul on leave and licence basis in Mumbai, the issue is what would have been the reasonable licence fee or rent payable by them. This issue will have to be considered on the next date. We direct the State Government to place on record an affidavit stating how much will be the rent or licence fee for obtaining similar premises on rental basis. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.874 of 2018 is free to file a an affidavit on this aspect.
7 The learned special counsel appointed by the State Government has placed on record a print out of e-mail received from the IIT, Mumbai indicating that draft final report will be presented to the State Government (Urban Development Department) by 22nd February 2019 and final report will be submitted after receiving inputs from the Urban Development Department. We direct the State Government to provide a copy of the draft final report of IIT, Mumbai to the Advocates appearing for all the parties immediately after the same is received.
8 Considering the finding recorded in PIL No.140 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 14:31:22 ::: 6 oswp874 withpil140.doc of 2009 that the directions issued therein are in larger public interest and for protection of the citizens of Mumbai, it is obvious that for implementing the directions issued therein, the Code of Conduct on account of election of Lok Sabha will not come in the way of the State Government, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation or any other public authority. Stand over till 8th March 2019. To be listed under the caption of `Directions'.
9 The learned special counsel for the State Government has placed on record a copy of minutes of the meeting of the Committee appointed by the State Government held on 7th February 2019 in which it is mentioned that 300 tenements offered by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (for short "MHADA") can be used only for a period of one year and therefore, MHADA shoulds consider whether the tenements can be offered on permanent basis.
10 We make it clear that this order cannot be construed to mean that this Court has finally decided the issue whether the State Government is liable to pay compensation in terms of money.
(SARANG V.KOTWAL,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.) ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2019 14:31:22 :::