Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. The 4th Respondent to this Petition is a partnership frm of developers. According to the Petitioners themselves, as set out in paragraph 9 the building requires substantial repairs. Mr Vanoo submits that a structural audit was carried out in 2017-2018 when the building was found to be in what is called the C-2/A category requiring urgent repairs but not demolition. This paragraph also says that the member of the society Wobviously including the Petitioners, agreed to proceed with the redevelopment of the building i.e. that it would be brought down and reconstructed. Then the Petitioners say that there was no action taka en to obtain a tender and no project management consultant was appointed.

15. Paragraph 11 contains an allegation of mala fdes against the 4th Respondent developer made in the usual vague and un- particularised fashion by alleging that the builder has sought to dictate and manipulate the proceedings of the society. re are not concerned with these narrations about the development agreement or the proposal between the society and its members.

16. rhat is then alleged in paragraph 14 is that the society Wof which the Petitioners are members, obtained a "E"stage-managedW structural audit report of 3rd June 2019 to show that the building was in the C-1 category i.e. so dilapidated and ruinous as to warrant its being pulled down.

17. According to the Petitioners, the 2nd Respondent issued the frst impugned notice dated 3rd July 2019 under Section 354 of the MMC Act saying that the building was ruinous. The Petitioners maintain that there is no basis for this notice and that the structural audit report of 3rd June 2019 is, in their words 'false'. There is then a reference to the correspondence by or on behalf of the Petitioners by which the Petitioners submitted their own consultant's report dated 26th July 2019 saying that the building could be repaired. re will return to this report shortly. Then there are averments about 22nd August 2019 KHALIL AHMED MOHD ALI HAMDULAY V MCGM & ORS OSWPL2417-19-J.DOC the Petitioners having approached various authorities and municipal councillors, with which we are again not concerned. The Petitioners then contend that on 14th August 2019 there was a direction to place the two con icting structural reports before the Technical Advisory Committee of the MCGM. But in the meantime on 13th August 2019 the MCGM issued a notice threatening to disconnect the electricity and water supply to the building. The Petitioners replied to this on 16th August 2019 saying that the matter was pending before the TCA and therefore action should not be taka en.