Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Andheri Purab Paschim Cooperative ... vs Municipal Corporation For Greater ... on 22 September, 2023
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, Sanjay Karol
1
ITEM NO.74 COURT NO.9 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).21184/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-09-2023
in WPL No. 4234/2023 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Bombay)
ANDHERI PURAB PASCHIM
COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR GREATER MUMBAI & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 194024/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 194025/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 22-09-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay K Hedge, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Onkar Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. We have perused the relevant part of the Report of Signature Not Verified the Technical Advisory Committee and the consideration thereof made Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2023.09.23 11:56:48 IST Reason: in the impugned order dated 12.09.2023. The concerned paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow :-2
“20. At the heart of this there is then a fundamental dispute as to fact. Mr. Tripathi’s presentation expects us in a Writ Court to resolve this factual dispute about the structural condition of the building. We are not structural engineers. We are not equipped to answer questions like these. That is why the whole edifice of the TAC was created. It has two reports. One says the building is dilapidated. The other says the building can be repaired. The TAC independently surveys, assesses, inspects and tests the structural stability of the building. It hears architects from both sides and there is no case before us that the report was made without hearing experts from both sides. It considers all rival reports. It then makes its separate independent finding and conclusion. This is now sought to be faulted, strictly and only on the basis of fact by saying “the building can be repaired”.
21. This simply puts the entire matter out of the frame of the Writ Court. That was not the purpose of establishing the TAC at all. It was meant to provide some sort of a check, some sort of a balance against unilateral declarations of buildings being dilapidated. It was not intended to provide individuals with yet another cause of action in writ law to attempt to upset findings of the TAC on factual and technical aspects.”
2. Considering the above discussion and the circumstances here, we see no reason to entertain the special Leave Petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.
3. However, at this stage, learned senior counsel submits that 3 petitioner be granted limited time to make alternate arrangement for the occupants of the building and during this limited period the demolition of the unsafe building be protected.
4. If an appropriate affidavit specifying the time line is filed indicating when the building would be vacated, limited relief could be considered depending on the nature of the assurance.
5. Accordingly, notwithstanding the dismissal of the SLP the case file be kept alive for the limited purpose of filing of the above affidavit within three days.
6. The Affidavit is permitted to be e-filed.
7. Post the matter immediately after the affidavit is filed.
[DEEPAK JOSHI] [KAMLESH RAWAT] COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR