Bombay High Court
Mrs. Chhaya Sunil Bamb vs Thane Municipal Corporation And Ors on 12 July, 2022
Author: M.G.Sewlikar
Bench: R. D. Dhanuka, M.G.Sewlikar
KVM
1/5
907 - WP 7756 OF 2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
KANCHAN KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD MAYEKAR
Date: 2022.07.13
MAYEKAR 11:23:02 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 7756 OF 2022
Chhaya Sunil Bamb ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
Thane Municipal Corporation & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr.Rashmin Khandekar, a/w. Mr.Pritesh Burad, Ms.Samita Vaviya,
Mr.Ravi Patel, i/b. Mr.Pritesh Burad for the Petitioner.
Mr.Anand S.Kulkarni for the Respondent no.1.
Mr.Kamlesh Ghumre, a/w. Ms.Sonali Jadhav, Mr.Krishana Eppar for
the Respondent nos. 2 to 4.
CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND
M.G.SEWLIKAR, JJ.
DATE : 12th JULY, 2022 P.C:-
Matter is placed on board for direction on the praecipe filed by the learned advocate for the petitioner. Our attention is invited to the order dated 30th June, 2022 passed by this Court permitting the petitioner to obtain structural audit report from VJTI within four weeks from the date of the said order certifying that the writ structure is not required to be demolished.
KVM 2/5 907 - WP 7756 OF 2022.doc
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that since VJTI has been already engaged by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 for submitting audit report, VJTI has refused to accept the assignment of structural audit report on the request of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent nos.2 to 4 jointly state that they have no objection if other structural auditor is appointed in place of VJTI. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 submits that if IIT, Mumbai is appointed as structural auditor, his clients have no objection to share 50% of the fees and charges that will be charged by the IIT, Mumbai. Statement is accepted.
4. Accordingly, we permit the petitioner to contact IIT, Mumbai for obtaining structural audit report. The fees and expenses of the IIT, Mumbai, if any, shall be paid by the petitioner and the respondent nos.2 to 4 equally. A copy of the report shall be furnished to the respondents by the petitioner's advocate within one week from the date of such report.
KVM 3/5 907 - WP 7756 OF 2022.doc
5. IIT, Mumbai is directed to visit the writ structure permitted by the order dated 30th June, 2022 and to submit a report in respect of the remaining portion of the structure.
6. IIT, Mumbai shall make an endevour to submit a report within two weeks from the date of the visit with their representative on the site.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 further submits that after obtaining instructions, he would make a statement whether the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are necessary parties to this petition or not.
8. Place the matter on board for admission on 29th August, 2022. Ad-interim relief granted by this Court to continue till next date.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the liberty granted by this Court in paragraph (6) of the said order dated 30th June, 2022 to carry out reconstruction of wall in view of the ongoing business of the petitioner in the said premises and for the KVM 4/5 907 - WP 7756 OF 2022.doc reasons recorded in paragraph (6).
10. In paragraph (9), this Court has recorded the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the petitioner, there are some hirelings in front of the building in question and thus the petitioner may not be able to construct the demolished wall and seeks police protection for carrying out construction of the said wall. This Court had permitted the police protection to the petitioner at the request of the petitioner in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. If any obstruction is created by any party including the parties to the petition in carrying out reconstruction of the wall permitted by this Court by an order dated 30th June, 2022, this Court will initiate appropriate action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against such party.
12. It is made clear that if any roof is required to be reconstructed in view of the demolition of the wall, the petitioner would be at liberty to carry out such construction of roof also to make the structure habitable. KVM 5/5 907 - WP 7756 OF 2022.doc
13. It is prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner carries out reconstruction of the wall and the roof, the petitioner be permitted to videograph the process of reconstruction of the wall and the roof. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 has no objection.
14. It is made clear that when the structural auditor's visit the writ premises for the purpose of preparing audit report, the structural auditor appointed by both the parties are permitted to videograph the condition of the building in question.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4 states that the petitioner was not utilizing the writ structure when the wall was demolished. This statement of the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 is strongly denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
[M.G.SEWLIKAR, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]