Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

067. It is alleged that at the behest of respondent nos.3 to 5, the Corporation issued impugned notice. Petitioners are under constant threat of demolition of the subject structure. Petitioners further state that they have submitted relevant documents to respondent no.2, namely,

(a) structural audit report by M/s. V. J. Joshi & Associates, (b) structural audit report by M/s. Viztech Consultants, (c) structural audit report by Vastu Associates with N.D. Test Report conducted by EN Lab Services, registered structural engineer, (d) structural audit report by Mr. Milind Patil, structural engineer having B.M.C. License No. STR/P86 with N. D. Test Report conducted by M/s. R. K. Infra Technoclinc Services Pvt. Ltd., appointed by the shop owners of the suit premises and (e) structural audit report dated 15/2/2016 by Veermata Jinabai Technological Institute (VJTI). The petitioners objected to the decision of respondent no.2 in declaring the subject structure in C-1 category (building to be demolished).

12. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner (F/North Ward) submitted papers to TAC on 30/7/2016 to take a fresh decision keeping in view all the earlier reports, including report of VJTI and all competent expert bodies, if any. Further fresh structural audit report of the subject structure under reference from the trustees of Bai Velbai Velji Bhimji Charitable Trust carried out by S. P. College Of Engineering was also submitted to TAC by the Asstt. Commissioner (F/North) Ward. Accordingly, TAC arranged meeting on 26/8/2016 with Director (E.S. & P) Chairman of TAC's cabin in the presence of 15 officers/consultants. The TAC prepared comparison statement of tests which was submitted by F/North ward in the meeting held on 26/8/2016 at 2.45 p.m. carried out by structural consultants. The said comparison statement mentioned by the TAC in its report is reproduced as under :-

21. We have perused the record, the judgments cited (supra), the structural audit reports submitted by the parties and the TAC's report. We find that the building has become old and dilapidated. The building is more than 60 years old. The structural audit reports show that due to poor condition and age of the building and lack of maintenance, heavy leakages/seepage are observed and vegetation growth is also noticed. Most of the columns, beams and many slabs supporting common passage at all floors are in dangerous condition and many of them are prop supported.

23. The TAC took into consideration six structural consultants appointed for the matter under reference. In the opinion of the TAC the structure is in bad condition and has outlived its life. Sagging was observed and unauthorized extensions were noticed. Terrace and the toilets are in a very bad condition. The TAC noticed structural cracks and sagging at few locations. In the opinion of the TAC, the building is beyond repairs.

24. This court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not sit over for reviewing the merits of the structural audit reports. It is the job of experts. The opinion of the experts reached with regard to the condition of the building being subjective opinion, this court would not substitute its view, even if the opinion suffers from some errors here or there. The opinion of structural audit reports submitted by the tenants and the landlords are conflicting in nature and, therefore, under the guidelines os-wpl-3002-3011 & 2934 - 16 framed by this court, the TAC would look into and evaluate properly to decide regarding the sustainability of the structure. It is for the TAC to take appropriate decision as to whether the building is in repairable condition or not and whether the persons should continue to occupy such building. If it is in such a dangerous condition that it may collapse and cause loss of life and property, the TAC evaluates the same and submits the report accordingly. The TAC, after going through six structural audit reports submitted before it has again looked into the matter consequent to the remand of the case by this court. Comparison statement mentioned by TAC in its report shows that six experts carried out UPV Test, Rebound Hammer Test, Half Cell Potential and Carbonation Test. Based on these reports, the TAC submitted its report. In the facts, we do not find that it was necessary for the TAC to again get one more report by appointing structural auditor from their side. While remanding the matter to TAC, this court did not direct TAC for a visual inspection report before submitting report. Neither the petitioners pressed for the same.