Bombay High Court
Sundar R. Gavaskar And 12 Ors vs Municipal Corporation For Gr. Mumbai ... on 19 December, 2018
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Ranjit More, Revati Mohite Dere
1/4 911-wpl.4185.2018.doc
nsc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.4185 OF 2018
Sundar R. Gavaskar and Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai,
Through Commissioner and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Anilkumar Patil and Mr.Pankaj Pandey, for the Petitioners.
Ms.K.H.Mastakar, for the Respondent - M.C.G.M.
Mr.R.M.Hardas, for the Respondent No.4.
Mr.Akshay Petkar, for the Respondent No.3.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE &
REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
DATE : 19th DECEMBER, 2018 P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The Petitioners, by this Petition, are challenging the notices under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 21:27:48 :::
2/4 911-wpl.4185.2018.doc
3. Ms. Mastakar, learned counsel for the M.C.G.M. submits that subsequent to issuance of the above notices, notices under Section 488 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, are also issued on 29th October, 2018.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the above referred notices are issued on the basis of Structural Audit Report submitted by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - owners. He, disputes the Structural Audit Report submitted by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 and relied upon by the M.C.G.M. He submitted that the Petitioners wants to appoint their registered Structural Engineer to take Structural audit of the subject property. He submitted that the Petitioners will appoint a registered Structural Engineer, within a period of two weeks from today. Statement accepted.
5. In the event, the Structural Audit Report, submitted by the Petitioners is contrary to the Structural Audit Report submitted by the owners i.e. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, in that case the matter will have to be referred to the Technical Advisory Committee ('TAC'). If the Structural ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 21:27:48 ::: 3/4 911-wpl.4185.2018.doc Audit Report is similar to the Structural Audit Report submitted by the owners i.e. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, then, of course the Corporation can proceed in pursuance to the impugned notices.
6. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the Petitioners asserts that the buildings in question are not dilapidated and it requires repairs and for that purpose, the Petitioners want to appoint a registered Structural Engineer.
7. In the above circumstances, in order to enable the Petitioners to get their Structural Audit Report, we defer the hearing of this Petition to 21st January, 2019.
8. In the meanwhile, no coercive steps shall be taken, in pursuance to the impugned notices, subject to the condition that the Petitioners file an undertaking in this Court within a period of ten days from today, stating therein, that the Petitioners will occupy the premises in their possession at their own risk. Undertaking to further state that in the event the building or any part thereof collapses and any loss is caused to any third party, the Petitioners shall be solely responsible for the same. ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 21:27:48 :::
4/4 911-wpl.4185.2018.doc
9. If such undertakings are not filed in this Court, within a period of ten days from today, ad-interim relief shall stand vacated, without further reference to the Court. A copy of the said undertakings to be served on the other side.
REVATI MOHITE DERE, J. RANJIT MORE, J.
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/12/2018 21:27:48 :::