Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs Kailash Bhadrige B.I.T. Chawl Niwasi ... on 27 November, 2015
Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant
CP(C) 621/15
1
ITEM NO.202 COURT NO.5 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONMT. PET.(C) No.621/2015 In S.L.P.(C) No.39114/2012
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
KAILASH BHADRIGE B.I.T. CHAWL NIWASI Respondent(s)
VAASAHAT BACHAV KRUTI SAMITI & ORS.
(With appln. (s) for intervention and office report)
(For final disposal)
Date : 27/11/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s) Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv.
Mr. J.J. Xavier, Adv.
Mr. P.V. Naik, Adv.
Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv.
Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv.
Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR
Mr. Varun Singh, Adv.
Mr. Karandeep Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Satyandra Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
Mr. Hemang Raythatta, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Gulshan Kumar Arora
Date: 2015.11.30
17:19:57 IST
Reason:
Mr. Kunal A. Cheema, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
Mr. Vilas Giri, Adv.
CP(C) 621/15
2
Mr. Rohit Bhat, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Dhar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
While dealing with the petition for contempt, this Court had passed an order on 27th October, 2015, which is to the following effect:
“This Court on 12.10.2015 had passed the following order:
“In the meantime, the respondent No.1 Kailash Bhadrige, shall go to the office of the Municipal Corporation of Grater Mumbai at 10.30 a.m. on 19.10.2015 and accompany the competent authority selected by the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai being assisted by the Police so that the 1st respondent and other representatives, not exceeding five, can go and se the alternative place where the inhabitants of the slum are likely to be shifted.
The photographs of the transit camps shall be filed before this Court on the next date of hearing. The purpose of issuing this direction is only to find out whether there are adequate facilities available for the people who are to shift to the alternative place.
The personal presence of respondent Nos.4 and 5 is dispensed with. All the other respondents shall remain personally present on 27.10.2015.
CP(C) 621/15 3 Call on 27.10.2015 for final disposal of the contempt petition. The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, shall also remain personally present on that day.” In pursuance of our order Mr. Srinivas, the Additional Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, is present in Court. The number of documents along with photographs are filed by the respondents. As indicated in the earlier order we wanted to know whether there are adequate facilities available for the people who are to shift to the alternative place. We have been apprised that there are 25 buildings and according to the respondents, 125 families are staying. Mr. L.N. Rao, learned senior counsel after obtaining instructions from Mr. Srinivas submits that apart from these 125 families, many other people are also residing near the vicinity. Learned counsel for the respondents has filed photographs showing that the over-head tanks, corridors and galleries etc. are in a bad shape.
Regard being had to the factual dispute and keeping in view the people who are to be shifted, we intend to appoint a committee which shall visit the place and the surroundings and to see if there are any inadequacies for proper living. The Committee shall not address to the sphere of pollution. That apart, they shall also go and see the building nos.13 to 16 where the respondents are staying. The Committee shall constitute of the following Members:
1. Mr. Ashok Gupta, Sr. Adv. (Chairman)
2. Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Adv.
3. Mr. Sidharth Bhatnagar, Adv.
The Additional Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, shall discuss with the Chairman of the Committee and make all necessary arrangements for their visit to Mumbai and inspection. The representatives of the respondents, not less than 5, shall accompany to point out the defects. The respondents shall cooperate with the CP(C) 621/15 4 authorities of the Corporation and with the Committee failing which this Court shall deal with them with iron hands.
The Committee shall furnish the report within a period of three weeks from today.
List this matter on 24.11.2015.
The Additional Municipal Commissioner, Mr. Srinivas, shall personally remain present in Court on that date to render assistance to this Court.” In the meantime, the Committee constituted by the said order has submitted its report. The relevant part of the Report of the Committee reads as follows:
“Pursuant thereto, on 14.11.2015 and 15.11.2015, the three Member Committee (“the Committee”) visited the following sites:
(i) Mazgaon Tadwadi B.I.T. Chawl, Tadwadi, Mumbai (“the Mazgaon Chawl”)
(ii) Transit Camp at Mahul, Mumbai (“the transit Camp”)
3. Each of these sites was visited twice (once each on 14.11.2015 and 15.11.2015). In terms of the Order dated 27.10.2015, the following representatives of the Respondents accompanied the Committee:-
(i) Shri Kailash Bhadrige (who stated he was a resident of Room No.44 in transit building No.13-A at Mazgaon).
(ii) Shri Jitendra Bhaskar (who stated he was a resident of Room No.24 in Building No.16)
(iii) Shri Girish Bhaskar (who stated he was a resident of Room No.24 in Building No.16)
(iv) Shri Naran Solanki (who stated he was a resident of Room No.50 in Building No.15) CP(C) 621/15 5
(v) Shri Deepak Rathore (who stated he was a resident of Room No.42 in Building No.16)
4. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) was represented by the following:
(i) Shri S.V.R. Srinivas, Additional Municipal Commissioner (E.S.)
(ii) Shri Kishore Kshirsagar, Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Improvement)
(iii) Shri V.V. Shankarwar, Assistant Commissioner (Estate)
(iv) Shri Kishore Desai, Assistant Commissioner 'E' Ward
(v) Shri B.V. Kasgikar, Ward Executive Engineer, M/W Ward
(vi) Smt. Vjawala Deshpande, Law Officer
(vii) Shri J.J. Xavier, Joint Law Officer
(viii) Shri P.V. Naik, Deputy Law Officer.
BACKGROUND:
5. In so far as the Mazagaon Chawl is concerned, it was found that each of the building Nos.13 – 16 have 80 tenements situated in 4 floors (Ground + 3; 20 tenements per floor). There are common bathroom and toilet facilities on each floor. Each room was stated to measure approximately 180 sq. ft. These buildings were said to have been constructed during the period 1920 – 30. The Respondents are tenants of the MCGM, many of whom have been in occupation for several generations. The Respondents stated that they were mainly working in the unorganized sector, such as domestic help, compounders etc. and were largely working in and around Mazgaon. Some of the Respondents are also in Government service.
6. Mazgaon has several amenities like schools (Municipal Primary School, St. Mary CP(C) 621/15 6 School, Sir Elikaduri School and College, St. Peter's School, St. Isabelle School) in the vicinity to the Chawl. Hospitals (J.J. Hospital, Prince Aly Khan Hospital and Balaji Hospital), Markets (Mazgaon and Byculla) and 3 local railway Stations (Sandes Road, Dockyard Road and Byculla) are also nearby.
7. The MCGM placed before the Committee a location and existing building plan dated 21.11.2006 showing the location of buildings 13-16 and surroundings.
A copy of the plan dated 21.11.2006 is annexed as Annexure – A.
8. The Respondents placed before the Committee two plans dated 31.07.2006 and 10.08.2011. According to the Respondents, these plans show that transit accommodation was proposed for buildings 13 – 16 in the same Chawl. However, only a part thereof has been constructed (namely buildings 13-A and 13-B) in which residents of building No.13 and 14 (partly) have been accommodated.
Copy of the plans dated 31.07.2006 and 10.08.2011 are annexed as Annexure – B and Annexure – C respectively.
9. It was also revealed that Building No.12 in the plan has already been demolished and transit Accommodation has been constructed, namely Building No.12-A. It was stated that transit accommodation can be built on the open space to accommodate some of the Respondents as well.
INSPECTION OF BUILDING NO.13-16:
10. Building No.13 was found to be in highly dilapidated condition. There was no electricity/water connection. The Respondents informed the Committee that all tenants had vacated the said building. The MCGM stated that the Respondents, though not physically residing in Building No.13, had locked their respective rooms with their belongings and possession was not with the MCGM. The Committee did find tenements locked with CP(C) 621/15 7 padlocks.
11. Building No.14 was also in a very dilapidated condition and was found to be partly occupied. It was pointed out that only the fourth floor of this building had been vacated.
Photographs of Building No.13 and 14 are annexed as Annexure -D.
12. Building Nos.15 and 16 were found to be largely occupied and had electricity and water connection. The Committee also inspected the interiors of these buildings and certain rooms (specifically tenement No.7 and 36 in building No.15 and tenement Nos.24 and 39 in building No.16). The condition of building Nos.15 and 16 appeared to be in far better condition than building Nos.13 and 14. This observation, however, is not based on any structural report, but a mere visual observation. The concrete had come off in some places and support had also been provided by way of wooden/Iron rods. the tenements from the inside were ship-shape and had facilities such as television sets, refrigerators etc. It was also noticed that a couple of tenements had split air-conditioners.
Photographs of Building Nos.15 and 16 are annexed as Annexure – E and Annexure – F respectively.
13. The representatives of the Respondents stated that they were willing to vacate their respective tenements as long as transit accommodation was provided in the same area. According to the Respondents, the buildings have not been repaired by the MCGM for approximately the past 15 years.
14. It was also stated that transit accommodation was not fully built by the builder and if the builder had built transit accommodation as per the plans, a number of persons would be accommodated on site.
TRANSIT BUILDING AT MAHUL
15. The Committee also visited the transit CP(C) 621/15 8 accommodation proposed to be provided to the Respondents at Mahul, Chembur and also visited the surrounding areas. The complex has 25 buildings in all. MCGM stated that 2485 Project Affected Persons (PAP's) were residing in the complex on ownership basis i.e. about 500 families.
16. The building reserved for the purpose of transit accommodation for Respondents is a 7 storied building with a working lift. The building has 240 tenements in all, each measuring 225 sq. ft. with attached toilet. This building was found to have electricity and water connection and is presently completely unoccupied. The Committee also inspected various rooms, corridor, water taps and electricity meters. The accommodation, in itself, was fit and proper for occupation. Besides, the area, which comprised of several other buildings also, was fenced. Security guards were present. The roads were wide, tree lined and had street lights.
Photographs of the transit building are annexed as Annexure -G.
17. The transit camp is located at a distance of approximately 20 kms. from the Mazgaon Chawl. Since the Eastern Flyway (which is the fastest route) is not accessible to 2 and 3 wheelers and buses, the Committee also went to the transit camp via Chembur, which is the route to be taken by persons using public transport.
18. On visiting the surrounding areas, it was found that Mahul village is situated about 1 Km away from the transit camp had basic facilities such as market, Marathi Medium School, Police Chowki, dispensaries and playground. The following facilities / amenities were found to exist by the Committee:
(i) Transport: There was a Bus Stop outside the main gate of the complex. A bus terminus was located within a kilometre. It is stated that the bus service continues till 11 P.M. at night. A Monorail station (Connection to Wadala) is situated less than 2 Km from CP(C) 621/15 9 site. The Monorail service continues till 10 PM.
(ii) School: A Marathi Medium School (upto class VII) was situated within a kilometre.
(iii) Police Chowki was situated in Mahul Village (1 Km was site)
(iv) Market: Mahul Village has a market within 1 Km from site and has a few general provision stores. There is a branch of Canara Bank.
(v) Medical facilities: Private dispensaries were seen in Mahul village. MCGM stated that there was also a municipal dispensary.
19. Apart from the abvoe, Chembur is located at a distance of approximately 4 km from the transit building and has all fully developed amenities / facilities.
The MCGM placed an approved layout plan and Google Map showing location of the layout and nearby amenities.
Copy of the approved layout plan and Google Map annexed as Annexure – H and Annexure
-I respectively.
20. The primary objection of the Respondents regarding shifting to the transit accommodation at Mahul, Chembur is the distance from their present accommodation in Mazgaon. The Respondents are mainly employed in and around Mazgaon and in South Mumbai, which has excellent amenities (as stated hereinabove). In comparison, the transit building has limited amenities and transportation. The Respondents stated that they would have no transport available in the late evenings and the area is unsafe at night. They also stated that since they work far away, each person will be required to spend approximately Rs.2500/- per month on transportation alone. The Respondents also said that once they move to the transit accommodation, there would be very little likelihood of them moving back to Mazgaon as CP(C) 621/15 10 there is no time frame within which the re-development would take place. The Respondents did not offer any suggestions when asked about how amenities / facilities could be improved in the transit building. According to them, transit accommodation ought to be provided at Mazgaon itself.” On a perusal of the Report, it is clear that the flats situate in Mahul are habitable as is seen from the report, especially from paragraph 20. True it is, the petitioners in the special leave petition shall face certain difficulties, but the doubt that the flats at Mahul are not habitable, is dispelled.
On a perusal of the aforesaid Report, we find that there are no occupants in building No.13 and the occupants of the top floor of building No.14 have been shifted to building Nos.13-A and 13-B which are transit homes. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai, do not dispute the said position. Their only grievance is that the occupants have not handed over the keys of building No.13 and the top floor of building No.14. The same shall be handed over within two weeks hence in the presence of the Assistant Commissioner “E” Ward. As far as the rest of the buildings, namely, the other floors of building No.14 and building Nos.15 and 16, are concerned, the possession shall be handed over to the said authority by 10th January, 2016. CP(C) 621/15 11 S.L.P.(C) No.39114 of 2012 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of status quo is modified to the extent that the occupants shall vacate as per our earlier order in this petition, and the respondent No.2, the developer can proceed to obtain statutory licenses and other permissions.
When the developer commences the construction, it shall intimate the members of the Committee, who shall inspect the site.
Let the contempt petition and the special leave petition be listed in the first week of February, 2016.
Needless to say, the pendency of the special leave petition shall not be an impediment for the authorities to grant the requisite license and permission to the developer.
If, in the meantime, the developer gets the license and permission, he is at liberty to commence the construction.
Liberty to mention.
(Chetan Kumar) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master