Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Ms Yadav has instructions today. She points out and argues quiet correctly that there is blatant suppression in the Petition. There is no mention at all in this Petition of the fact that on 17th August 2022 the Society itself wrote to the Assistant Engineer IV (B & F), K West Ward in reference to a notice dated 9th July 2022 under Section 353(B) of the MMC Act forwarding a copy of a structural audit report. Even at that time the Society said that it was in the process of redevelopment. About 50% of the members had consented to the appointment of developer. Within six months' time, the society said, redevelopment would proceed. This is the document on the file of the MCGM and is shown to us. That file also contains the original of the Society's structural report of 5th August 2022 of one Aaryan Consultants forwarded to the MCGM on 17th August 2022. That structural audit report is addressed to the Petitioner Society itself. It clearly shows that Aaryan Consultants were appointed by the Petitioner Society.

3. The Society has two wings, Wing-A and Wing-B. The report is an extensive one nearly 40 pages or more. It reports on the condition of both wings and in terms, it says that both wings are to be evacuated with demolition immediately; and that both wings are C-1 category.

4. Having got this report on hand, a few months later, on 4th January 2023, the MCGM addressed a letter to the Secretary, 22nd August 2023 902-OSWPL-22928-2023.DOC Chairman, owners, all occupiers and tenants of the petitioner Society. This references to the structural audit report of the Aaryan Consultant and the Section 353(B) notice. In view of that structural report, the addressees were invited to submit their suggestions, objections, justification, say and opinion as to why building should not be declared as C-1 category. 

             (c)    Despite structural audit report dated
             15/06/2023      the    dispute     with   regard   to
categorization of society building from C-1 to C-

2A and C-2B is not referred to TAC Committee for taking expert opinion.

(f ) The society building is fit for human habitation and immediate demolition or vacation is not at all required."

10. These statements are patently untrue to the knowledge of the Petitioner Society and specifically to the knowledge of Ms Oza and Mr Gokani. They are directly contrary to the 17th August 2022 letter of the Society itself and the Aryan Consultants report.

"16. The Petitioner crave leave to refer to and rely upon all the relevant correspondence and minutes of the meeting of the Petitioner society in respect of redevelopment process as well as completing 79A process under the provisions of MCS Act and structural audit report when produce. In view of urgency if there is any omission and /or addition which may be condoned with liberty to Petitioner to produce the same before this Hon'ble Court."