Latest news with #ArifSDoctor
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Indian Express
Bombay HC orders top 18 floors Tardeo-high-rise residents to vacate flats without Occupation Certificate
The Bombay High Court has directed 'selfish' residents occupying the top 18 floors of a 34-storey tower in Tardeo, south Mumbai, having no Occupation Certificate (OC) to vacate their premises within two weeks and also raised concerns over no fire NOC for the entire high-rise. Failing which, the BMC will be free to take any action under notices issued by it as per law. The Court said residents of the Willingdon View Cooperative Housing Society, while indulging in 'brazen illegalities' for years, were least bothered about their own and others' lives. 'There being no fire No Objection Certificate (NOC), no OC for 17 to 34 floors, itself is glaring. It appears that the persons who are occupying the 34 storied building are least bothered about their own lives, if this be so, how can they be bothered about anybody else, in the event of any untoward incident of any nature taking place,' the HC observed. 'Such an approach which is wholly contrary to law, cannot be countenanced, in fact, it would set an example to perpetuate illegalities. It needs to be deprecated,' The Court clarified that the said persons will be entitled to occupy respective flats or tenements on 17th to 34th floor 'only after OC is granted' by following due process of law. A bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor passed an order on July 15 (Tuesday) while hearing a batch of pleas pertaining to the high-rise occupied by 50 flat purchasers of total 62 flats, which was made available on Saturday night. The bench rejected a request by senior advocate Dinyar Madon for housing society that sought stay on operation of the order citing Supreme Court order in Campa Cola case. The HC noted that during earlier hearings, the members occupying 'illegal' flats from 17 to 34 floors were 'emphatically' told to make alternate arrangements. The bench further said that there cannot be a plea 'more audacious' than the one seeking permission to occupy flats without OC as it would lead to 'regime of complete lawlessness.' Senior advocate S U Kamdar for BMC said it had issued several notices in respect of 17 to 34 floors to vacate their premises and said that the construction was required to be restored in conformity with originally submitted plans He argued that permitting occupancy on 17 to 34 floors would be against the law and in fact the entire building was required to be sealed for not having fire NOC. The HC said that while it will hear the plea in regard to those who occupy 1st to 16th floors having part-OC during next hearing, the BMC 'shall stay its hands in resorting to any demolition, under the notices and insofar as the illegal constructions in respect of which notices were issued.' However, Justice Kulkarni for the bench 'unreservedly' noted that in view of its observations and earlier orders, it 'did not approve the members continuing their occupation in the absence of the Fire NOC to the building even in regard to the 1st to 16th floors which has no fire clearance or approval from the Fire Department, by way of a Fire NOC.' The HC refused a plea to continue the earlier interim protection order of March 20, 2025 for another year to take corrective measures for regularisation and vacated the same. 'We would be justified to say that the flat purchasers who have taken law into their own hands in occupying construction which has no OC, are a selfish lot, who not only with open eyes are acting contrary to the building regulations but also have means, to defeat legal actions being taken by BMC, by indulging in several statutory violations, which can never be permitted,' the judges recorded. 'Merely for the reason that the developer, and the society and its members have resources in abundance, to first resort to illegalities and then by every possible means try to protect the illegalities ought not to prevent the Municipal Corporation to take an appropriate action as the law mandates,' the HC added and posted further hearing to July 29.
Indian Express
15-07-2025
- Health
- Indian Express
No interim relief to plea challenging Kabootar khanas closure: ‘Human health paramount'
Observing that the BMC's recent crackdown on pigeon feeding at Kabootar khanas (feeding areas) took 'human health to be paramount' into consideration, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant ad-interim relief to the petitioners challenging the closure of such areas. The HC, while noting that rights of humans and animals should be balanced, refused to pass an interim order permitting feeding pigeons twice a day pending hearing of the plea. The Court however directed that no old heritage Kabootar khanas can be demolished till further orders. Earlier this month, the Maharashtra government had directed BMC to close Kabootar khanas in the city citing serious health hazards due to pigeon droppings and feathers. A division bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor was hearing a writ plea filed by animal rights activist Pallavi Sachin Patil along with Sneha Deepak Visaria and Savita Mahajan, who sought direction to restrain BMC from demolishing Kabootar khanas/feeding areas for pigeons and to ensure that the petitioners and other citizens are not prevented from feeding pigeons. The plea also sought direction to BMC to restore the 'status quo' with respect to demolished or damaged kabootar khanas. Pending the plea's hearing, the petitioner sought a stay on BMC's 'illegal actions' with respect to the demolition of such feeding areas. 'BMC has material that citizens are affected. Medical science has progressed and there are evidence…It has happened in England, where some old people have died. We don't know what kind of lungs we have now. There are children and senior citizens. Why not adhere to the policy?' the HC orally questioned the petitioner's lawyer. Advocate Harish Pandya for the petitioner argued that even birds have the right to life and are required to be fed. Justice Kulkarni responded, 'There is an issue of concern all over… particularly at such a place (kabootar khana). It is becoming some kind of pandemic as a number of such places come up. KEM Hospital and other Municipal Hospitals have material as they deal with regular visits of persons affected with such diseases.' The judge went on to remark, 'While we recognise animal rights, we also have to put human rights on a high pedestal… You cannot put animal rights over human rights… rights of animals and humans are required to be balanced… We will have to examine whether it (balancing) is not done in the present decision. The corporation had not taken such a decision so far and now they had to because a lot of thought went into it. The whole idea is not to get these pigeons at one place.' Pandya argued that BMC acted in aa 'highhanded and arbitrary manner,' and sought interim relief to feed the pigeons at designated places twice a day so that 'they shall not die of thirst and hunger'. 'This is not a correct stand… that all pigeons in Mumbai go to Kabootar khana. You will find them everywhere… even in the HC corridor… Do you want us to say that pigeons will die if they do not visit Kabootar khana? They are surviving by themselves but you want to feed them because they gather at one place in Dadar area and are only concerned with them,' Justice Kulkarni orally remarked. 'There has to be a logic to your argument… Are you going to feed thousands and lakhs of pigeons? Who said pigeons depend only on your feeding? This is the rainy season so there is no shortage of water… We are conscious of animal rights and they should be balanced… How can they (animal rights) be overwhelming when public health is concerned? Their congregation should be stopped is what they (authorities) are saying,' the judges added. 'In view of the policy now sought to be implemented by the Municipal Corporation considering human health to be paramount, we are not inclined to grant any ad-interim order at this stage… Till the adjourned date of hearing, the old heritage kabootar khanas may not be demolished,' the HC noted. The bench directed the state government, BMC, Animal Welfare Boards of India and Maharashtra Police to file their affidavits in reply along with the response of Dean of civic-run KEM Hospital on health hazards before the next date of hearing on July 23.
Indian Express
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Shocking that well-placed educated persons ‘illegally' reside in Tardeo high-rise risking lives, BMC can't shut eyes: HC
The Bombay High Court on Thursday expressed 'shock' over how 'well-placed educated' persons continue to reside 'illegally' in the 34-storey high-rise in Tardeo in south Mumbai having no fire NOC and part-Occupation Certificate (OC), by putting lives of their families in risk. The HC questioned BMC whether it was going to 'shut its eyes' to the violations and 'casually' consider the issue. It asked the civic body to file an affidavit detailing an action proposed by it against the violations and steps to be taken against such occupiers, after which it will pass an order which will set precedent for such buildings across the city. A bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor was hearing a batch of pleas pertaining to the tower of Willingdon View Cooperative Housing Society, Tulsiwadi, Tardeo occupied by 50 flat purchasers of total 62 flats. On June 30, the HC had noted that there were 'glaring illegalities' in the building as it did not have any fire NOC or any approval from the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) of the BMC and there was no Occupation Certificate (OC) granted for nearly half of the floors (from 17 to 34). The HC had slammed the BMC for failing to take drastic action against 'daylight violations' and had said that prima facie the families were living 'illegally' at their own risk and consequences. On Thursday, senior advocate S U Kamdar for BMC submitted that as far as fire NOC was concerned, there cannot be any 'compromise' or 'regularisation' and the society will have to remove the offending portions and correct the same as per fire requirement. He added that in case of OC, certain approvals are required to be availed from Commissioner, after which there can be a regularisation if permissible. 'If fire NOC is non-negotiable, then what would be the status of the present residents? It is a 'serious issue' on which we really want to pass appropriate orders. What would be the stand of the corporation on a building which is being occupied without fire NOC? What should be the status of all such occupiers and what steps should be taken? Can they continue to reside? This is going to set an example to all those buildings and high-rises across the city,' the bench orally remarked. The judges added, 'We want to hear from the BMC whether it should consider this casually by saying that you (occupiers) please continue… Is BMC going to shut your eyes or are going to take some action? We want BMC to be impeccable in implementing rules and regulations.' Kamdar said that BMC had taken action and had issued several notices to the society. 'We want a statement on affidavit as to what should be done as on date when the fire NOC is not there. If clear stand is not there, we will interpret that it is a tacit approval and this appears to be the general policy of the Municipal Corporation and all buildings which are occupied without fire NOC, they can continue to do so and lives of the people can be risked in this manner,' the bench said. 'They (occupiers) are a society of well-placed educated people who continue to reside in a building, which poses such a grave risk to the lives of their families…it is shocking. We are concerned with a larger issue…. We are not going to permit any illegality to happen in any building. Because, things ought not to be looking as if it is beyond a municipal corporation to handle this situation in the city. Every time it should give an impression that SRA, MHADA, BMC or other municipal corporations are least bothered about law and everything comes to the court,' the bench added. It said it would not permit occupation without OC and suggested the flat owners make 'alternative arrangements for temporary residence.' The HC posted the matter to July 10.
Indian Express
02-07-2025
- Indian Express
HC upholds BMC action against ‘dangerous' building housing iconic eatery Jimmy Boy
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea by occupants of Vikas Building in South Mumbai's Fort area, which is over 129 years old and houses iconic Parsi eatery Jimmy Boy, and upheld the BMC's action seeking immediate vacation of the 'dilapidated and ruinous' premises. The court imposed Rs 5 lakh cost on petitioners to be paid to Cancer ward of civic-run KEM Hospital for suppression of facts. The petition by Vikas Cooperative Society Ltd of occupiers of the 'dangerous' building challenged had challenged 'arbitrary and illegal' BMC notices from June 20 and 21 under sections 353B and 354 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act, for vacating and demolishing a building by declaring it as C-1 (dilapidated and unsafe) category structure. The plea also challenged separate notices issued last month by MRA Marg Police, BEST, and BMC's water department restricting access, cutting electricity and water supply to the premises, respectively. The bench said that while it was their duty to maintain the building, several 'prominent commercial establishments' and a restaurant (Jimmy Boy) with large business turnover that occupy the building, 'have done nothing, other than exploiting the building and recklessly using the same, leaving it to be deteriorated'. After the petitioner society sought time from its members to remove their belongings, the BMC opposed the entry into the building in 'dangerous condition'. The HC clarified that entry would be at the 'own risk' of petitioner society's members subject to civic body's decision and without holding BMC, state authorities or state authorities liable in case of collapse. The HC added that the petitioner will be liable for any harm cause to third parties A bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor noted that the case pertained to a 129-year-old ground-plus-four-storeyed 'dangerous building' situated at a short distance from the HC building. The building housed 37 units including 11 law firms or offices, Jimmy Boy restaurant on ground floor and other commercial establishments. The BMC's Disaster Control Cell had vacated the building on June 21 citing 'urgent situation'. 'Any untoward incident of a collapse of the building would not only be a disaster qua the occupants of the building, but also to the adjoining premises qua the public at large in the busy Fort area,' the bench noted. It added that the society was 'too late in time to contend that the petitioner would make an attempt to repair the building'. The society, through senior advocate Aniruddh Joshi, termed the notices and classification into C-1 category to be arbitrary and illegal despite it having conducted structural audits from time to time. Advocate K H Mastakar for BMC justified the notices issued considering 'grave condition' of the said building. Justice Doctor for the bench observed that the petitioner society failed to refer to the structural stability report obtained by it in May, 2024 that certified the said building as 'very old, dilapidated and required to be vacated immediately'. The report showed that the building was of C-1 category and this amounts to material suppression, the HC noted. Referring to past HC and Supreme Court judgments, the bench noted that it was 'paramount' to consider safety of occupiers, those from adjoining buildings, passers-by, as they have the 'right not to get affected by the building collapse'.
Indian Express
30-06-2025
- Indian Express
HC slams BMC for ‘no drastic action' against high-rise despite no fire nod for 15 years, OC for 18 floors
The Bombay High Court on Monday expressed 'shock' over 'glaring' multiple violations, including no fire NOC (no-objection certificate) for the entire building for 15 years and no Occupation Certificate (OC) for nearly half the floors of a 34-storey high-rise in Tardeo in South Mumbai. It slammed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for 'failing to take drastic action' and permitting nearly 50 families to occupy the flats by risking their lives and questioned it for 'complete lawlessness'. The HC asked the flat purchasers and developers why such 'daylight violations' were required to be overlooked in view of the fire incidents in high-rises in the city. The court also sought a response from the civic body as to why water supply and electricity to the building cannot be cut, and questioned the department concerned as to why permission was given to operate lifts in the building. The HC stated that the developer and flat purchasers were occupying the units at their 'own risk' and there shall be civil and criminal liability on them if rights of third parties, including staff and servants, are violated or breached due to such incidents. A division bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor, while hearing batch of pleas pertaining to the tower of Willingdon View Cooperative Housing Society, Tulsiwadi, Tardeo, noted that the construction was completed in 2010 and the BMC permitted the building to be occupied thereafter without fire NOC for nearly 15 years. The bench expressed 'surprise' after reviewing a BMC joint inspection report highlighting gross violations by developer Satellite Holdings, noting the building only had a part Completion Certificate (CC) from ground to the 16th floor. 'What is further glaring and which would in fact shock our conscience is that floors 17 to 34 have no OC,' the bench noted, adding that the floors were illegally occupied. The HC observed that apart from several illegalities recorded by the BMC, one more illegality was that the entire 34-storey building lacked approval from the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) of the BMC, without which no person can occupy the building. 'We are at a complete loss to understand as to how such illegality and that too with impunity can at all be tolerated by the BMC and as to how there can be resistance on the part of the members/flat purchasers under the garb of any regularization application and more particularly when the developer admittedly has undertaken several unauthorised works including Floor Space Index (FSI) violations,' the bench observed. It noted that flat purchasers were trying to convince the court by seeking a 'complete go-by to the lawful requirements while chanting the routine mantra of regularisation'. The court further stated that compliance with fire safety norms by the CFO for any high-rise was 'non-negotiable' in view of past fatal fire incidents, including Kamla Mills fire, and 'there cannot be relaxation of such norms in any manner whatsoever'. It directed the CFO to file an affidavit on fire safety compliance and violations, and further asked the BMC's building and proposal department to file an affidavit in view of serious doubts raised in 2012 as to whether floors 1 to 16 can actually be said to have any OC. 'In the meantime, we are of the clear opinion that in such a situation, all the land purchasers/members of the society, who in our prima facie opinion are illegally occupying their flats and who actually need to vacate and more particularly those from 17th to 34th floor, shall continue to do (occupy) so at their own risk and consequences,' the HC said, adding they shall not be liable to be compensated by authorities in case of an untoward incident. Posting further hearing to Thursday, the HC said that if the BMC and other authorities respond that such gross illegalities require water and electricity supply to be cut, it would have no alternative but to permit the authorities to take appropriate action.
