Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(b) We appoint IIT, Mumbai to undertake structural audit of Gautam Niwas building and submit its report 12 9410 containing findings and conclusions on the aforesaid two aspects within six weeks from today.
(c) We direct the original Writ Petitioner, Review Petitioner as well as Respondents 2 to 5 to extend full cooperation to the representatives of IIT, Mumbai during the investigation regarding structural audit of Gautam Niwas building and to furnish all necessary information and documents as may be called upon by the representative of IIT, Mumbai within specified time, if any.
"1. We have perused the latest opinion of the Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai dated 25th February, 2011. No doubt, the opinion recorded by the IIT is that the method of reuse of vibrohammer is the only appropriate method and any other method would be speculative in nature. However, from the earlier opinions and the correspondence which are presented before us, we are unable to discern that the IIT has addressed itself to the concern expressed by the MMRDA and the private respondent that reuse of vibrohammer to ascertain the cause of damage to the building was on account of use of vibrohammer or otherwise, may involve possibility of latent damage to the structure already erected in the neighbourhood of the building which will be used for public utility service. Unless, the IIT were to opine that there was absolutely no possibility of even latent damage being caused to the building or the structures in the neighbourhood where the reuse of vibrohammer will be done, the question of experimenting reuse of vibrohammer does not arise.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(Professor R.S. Jangid) Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai-400 076."

(emphasis supplied)

21. In substance, we were more than convinced that, unless IIT was to opine that there was not even remotest possibility of immediate or, for that matter, distant latent damage to the structure already constructed and to be used for public utility service, the question of permitting re-use of Vibratory Hammer at the site cannot be countenanced. Even on fair reading of the reports submitted by IIT, we are not convinced that the possibility of latent damage is totally ruled out, 21 9410 i.e., damage, which may go undetected to the public infrastructure project, which has already been constructed, would go undetected in the immediate future but which may have safety and durability implications in the long term. The opinion of IIT, however, is more focused on the issue that, by re-use of Vibratory Hammer alone, it would be possible to measure and assess the position as to whether such vibration intensity could have caused damage to the building in question i.e. Gautam Niwas.

30. While parting, we place on record our appreciation for the co-operation and assistance given by IIT, Mumbai, pursuant to request 25 9410 made by the Court. As regards the costs incurred by IIT, Mumbai, till now to undertake the task assigned by the Court or its professional charges, if any, respondent No.3-Company shall be liable to bear the same entirely. This, however, does not mean that we have recorded any adverse finding against the respondents on merits of the controversy.