Manish Hansraj Gada vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai

CNR No : HCBM020316752026

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
ANANT
KRISHNA
NAIK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
ANANT KRISHNA
NAIK
Date: 2026.10.22
18:11:10 +0530
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 31674 OF 2026
1. Manish Hansraj Gada
Aged 54 years, Occupation : Business
Gala No.05, Vijay Industrial Estate
I. B. Patel Road, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai – 400 063.
2. Hansraj S. Gada (HUF)
through its Karta Hansraj S. Gada
Aged 83 years, Occupation: Retired
Gala No.02 and 03, Vijay Industrial Estate
I. B. Patel Road, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai – 400 063.
3. Manoj Hansraj Gada
Aged 59 years, Occupation: Business
Gala No.06, Vijay Industrial Estate
I. B. Patel Road, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai – 400 063.
4. Vatsal Manoj Gada
Aged 33 years, Occupation: Business
Gala No.01, Vijay Industrial Estate
I. B. Patel Road, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai – 400 063.
5. Shrenik H. Mehta (HUF)
through its Karta Shrenik H. Mehta
Aged 55 years, Occupation: Business
Gala No.102, Vijay Industrial Estate
I. B. Patel Road, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai – 400 063.
AKN 1
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
6. Dr. Inder H. Jain
Aged 59 years, Occupation: Business
Gala No.106, Vijay Industrial Estate
I. B. Patel Road, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai – 400 063.
7. Dr. Inder H. Jain
Leena I. Jain
Aged 59 years and 53 years respectively
Occup.: Business and Housewife respectively
Gala No.107, Vijay Industrial Estate
I. B. Patel Road, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai – 400 063. ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai , through the Municipal Commissioner
Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner P/South
Ward, MCGM
Opp. Citi Centre Mall, S. V. Road,
Goregaon (West), Mumbai – 400 104.
3. The Designated Officer/Assistant Engineer
(Building & Factory) – I, P/South Ward,
MCGM
Opp. Citi Centre Mall, S. V. Road,
Goregaon (West), Mumbai – 400 104 ... RESPONDENTS
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 31949 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 31674 OF 2026
Shri Vinod Mukund Meher ..Applicant
AKN 2
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
1. Manish Hansraj Gada
2. Hansraj S. Gada HUF
through its Karta
3. Manoj Hansraj Gada
4. Vatsal Manoj Gada
5. Shrenik H. Mehta HUF
6. Dr. Inder H Jain
7. Dr. Inder H Jain And
Leena Inder Jain .. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ... RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Vipul J. Shah, for the Petitioners.
Adv. Sheetal Metakari i/b Adv. Komal Punjabi, for the Respondent – BMC.
Mr. Abhijeet Desai i/b. Mr. Meezan Patel for the Intervenor.
…
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
th
RESERVED ON : 9 OCTOBER, 2026.
nd
PRONOUNCED ON : 22 OCTOBER, 2026.
AKN 3
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
JUDGMENT (Per Chief Justice):
1.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The Petition is filed seeking the
following substantive reliefs:
(a) issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ/order/direction in the
nature of certiorari calling for the records leading to the
impugned Notice under Section 354 dated 03.09.2026 (Exhibit-
A), and after examining the legality, validity and propriety
thereof, quash and set it aside, together with any consequential
C-1 classification founded on the disputed report (Exhibit-D);
(b) issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate direction
directing Respondents No. 1 to 3 to act strictly in accordance
with the guidelines dated 23.06.2014 and policy No.
MGC/A/8698 dated 03.05.2014, that is,
i. to conduct their own independent inspection and
assessment;
ii. to consider the independent structural audit of Strut
Consultants Pvt. Ltd.; and
iii. to refer the conflicting reports to the Technical Advisory
Committee and to abide by its decision, before taking any
action;
(c) issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate direction
restraining Respondents No. 1 to 3 from taking any coercive
step, demolition, evacuation or disconnection pursuant to the
impugned Notice, and directing that, if the Building is found
repairable, it be permitted to be repaired instead of demolished;
(d) issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate direction
directing Respondents No. 1 to 3 to produce the delegation
under Section 68 relied upon, and the record of any
independent inspection/assessment said to have been made
before the issue of impugned Notice;
Factual Matrix:-
2.
Brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant Writ Petition are as
AKN 4
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
under:
3.
The Petitioners claim to be the owners, members and occupiers as the
case may be of the corresponding Galas/Units shown against their name in a
building known as Vijay Industrial Estate (for short ‘ the said Building ’ ).
They all claim to constitute a substantial majority of members/occupants of
the Vijay Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd., (for short “ the said
Society ” ) and all the Petitioners have filed the instant Petition in their own
rights as owners/members/occupiers to protect the building and its
units/galas from the arbitrary demolition as per Notice under Section 354 of
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short “ the MMC Act ”) dated
rd
3 September, 2026 (for short “ Impugned Notice ”).
4.
The said Building stands upon leasehold land held under an Indenture
th nd
of Lease dated 28 August, 1971 and a sub-lease dated 2 October, 1971 in
favour of M/s. Vijay Construction Co. which constructed the industrial galas.
th
Consequently, Completion Certificate was also accorded on 10 January,
1973. Admittedly the building was constructed in 1973 and is about 53 years
old. Later on, the purchasers of the industrial gala/unit of the said Building
formed a Co-operative Society, which was duly registered under the
provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act, 1960 under the
th
registration no. BOM/GEN/1092 of 1978 dated 30 May, 1978. It also
appears that the conveyance/deem conveyance of the land in favour of
AKN 5
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
Society is still pending and the Petitioners claim to hold certain valuable
right i.e. ownership/leasehold/occupancy right and have claimed that they are
running business in the said Building.
5.
As per the provisions of Section 353(B) of the MMC Act, it is
obligatory on the part of the owners and occupiers of the building, which is
in existence and is in use for more than 30 years to have it inspected through
registered Structural Engineer with Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai (“ the MCGM ” for short). In the instant matter, it is not in dispute
that the building in question had completed 53 years of its existence and
hence, a structural audit was to be conducted.
6.
The record bears out that an Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the
nd
said Society was held on 2 January 2026 wherein the said Mr. Vinod
Meher, the Intervenor in these proceedings, was appointed as the Chairman
of the said Society. The Minutes of the Meeting are annexed at (page 93) to
the Petition. Thereafter the Society decided to carry out a structural audit
nd
which took place in a meeting held on 2 January 2026. Pursuant thereto a
st
Structural Audit Report dated 21 January 2026 was furnished, a copy of
which is exhibited (at page 77 to 89) of the Petition (for short ‘ Audit
Report ’). The said Auditor has, inter alia , opined the structure is not safe for
workable condition and also that the building is in a highly critical condition,
th
in C-1 category. In fact, by the communication dated 25 April 2026
AKN 6
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
addressed by the Society to the Assistant Commissioner of the Respondent -
MCGM has unanimously resolved that the building has been assessed to be
in a seriously deteriorated structural condition and is liable to be classified
under C-1 category. Not only this but it also states that the implications of
such classification, as C-1 category are extremely serious to include
th
immediate threat to life and property. Such communication dated 25 April
2026 is, also signed by the Secretary and Treasurer of the Society, at the
relevant time who happened to be Petitioners herein, besides the Chairman
of the Society, i.e. the Intervenor in these proceedings.
th
7.
Later on, MCGM had issued Notice dated 18 March 2026, under
Section 353-B of MMC Act and called for Audit Report. Consequently, the
st
Audit Report dated 21 January, 2026 issued by Mr. Vinay A. Kania of M/s.
nd
Seemu Consultancy was submitted to the Respondent No. 3 on 22 April,
rd
2026. Consequently, a Notice dated 3 September 2026 was issued under
Section 354 of MMC Act by MCGM, which is under challenge. Being
aggrieved by the Impugned Notice the instant proceeding is preferred.
8.
The matter was heard at the admission stage, as the claims and counter
th
claims had been set up by the parties on 11 September 2026 and in the
midst of the proceeding, Mr. Meezan Patel, learned Counsel, had also
appeared for the Intervener and raised an objection that other co-tenants in
the said Building have not been impleaded as party Respondents. The Court
AKN 7
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
had prima facie opined that the subject building is in dilapidated condition.
The Intervener Counsel had placed various photographs and had submitted
that the subject building is in dangerous and dilapidated condition. The same
was disputed by learned Counsel for the Petitioners and consequently on his
insistence, Mr. Siddharth S. Chandrashekhar, who is a practicing Advocate
of this Court, was appointed as a Court Commissioner and later on, he had
submitted a detailed Report in a sealed cover and accordingly by the Order
st
of this Court dated 21 September, 2026, the same was opened in the
presence of the parties. The Registry was directed to supply the photocopy of
the Court Commissioner's Report to the parties during the course of the day.
Submissions of the Petitioners:-
9.
Learned Counsel for Petitioners vehemently argued that the Impugned
rd
Notice dated 3 September, 2026 is unsustainable and needs to be set aside,
rd
as the same is in direct conflict of Judgment and Order dated 23 June, 2014
passed by the Co-ordinate Bench this Court in the case of Municipal
1
Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, as no
independent inspection or assessment had been carried out to classify the
building as “C-1 Category” (unsafe/dangerous/inhabitable structure need to
be vacated and demolished). He further placed reliance on the MCGM
rd
Policy No. MGC/A/8698 dated 3 May, 2014 and Standard Operating
1 Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014
AKN 8
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
Procedure (SOP) [Guidelines for declaring Private and Municipal Building
C-1 category (Dangerous, Unsafe)]. He further submits that the entire action
of the Respondent-MCGM is in direct conflict with the mandatory guidelines
issued by this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai (supra) and in spite of best endeavour, the Respondent-MCGM
failed to consider the owners/occupants genuine efforts to ensure an
independent structural audit and rather all sorts of obstruction had been
created by the Respondents for carrying out a structural audit.
10.
He submits that in view of the contradictory Audit Report submitted
by Mr. Vinay A. Kania of M/s. Seemu Consultancy, it is a well settled
position that in case there is a conflict in position, it is mandatory upon the
MCGM to refer the matter to the Technical Advisory Committee (for short -
“ TAC ”). Therefore, as there is a certain ambiguity in the Audit Report and
there is a doubtful authorship of the said Audit Report, a claim is set up by
the Petitioners that the building is habitable and in repairable condition. The
Impugned Notice is also in direct teeth of the Clause No. 1.07 of Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) [Guidelines for declaring Private and Municipal
Building C-1 category (Dangerous, Unsafe)] of the MCGM, which requires
the Executing Engineer to submit a detailed Report with concluding remarks,
structural audit, inventory, photographs and video shooting of the building
through the Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Chief (Building
AKN 9
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
Proposals) for sanctioning/classifying the said Building as C-1 Category and
Clause 1.08 permits the Section 354 of MMC Act Notice to issue only upon
such sanction/classification, whereas in the instant matter the same is
violated.
11.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that major structural
repairs took place in the year 2009 and necessary details have also been
brought on record to substantiate the said argument and as such the
demolition under the Impugned Notice is grossly disproportionate and the
entire exercise is malafide and calibrated. Furthermore, the same is in
violation of the SOP and in the absence of any TAC Report the building in
question cannot be categorized/classified as ‘C-1 category’ and in case no
reliefs are accorded by this Court, the Petitioners/Occupants would suffer
irreparable loss.
Submissions of the Respondent - MCGM:
12.
Per contra , learned Counsel for the Respondent-MCGM vehemently
resisted the reliefs and submitted that the Notice under Section 353-B of
MMC Act is rightly issued to the Owners/Occupiers of the said Building.
The same is neither perverse nor suffers from any irregularity. The Structural
Audit Report prepared by Structural Engineer, Mr. Vinay A. Kania of M/s.
Seemu Consultancy (License No. STR/K/227) was duly submitted and
nd
signed by Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer of the said Society on 22
AKN 10
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
April, 2026. After receiving the said Audit Report, MCGM invited objections
rd
vide letter dated 3 July, 2026 and admitted that there was no such
contradictory Report. Consequently, the measurement of carpet area and
possession of Owner/Chairman/Secretary/Occupiers residing in said
st
Building had been carried out and issued a carpet area measurement on 1
September, 2026.
13.
As there was no contradictory Audit Report received, there was no
occasion for referring the matter to TAC and moreover, as an abundant
precaution and on the Petitioners insistence, a Court Commissioner, who is
an independent person was appointed and in the presence of all the
stakeholders, a categorical Report of the Court Commissioner had been
submitted to the Court qua the status of the said Building. The same has also
fortified the stand of Respondent-MCGM, which is a statutory body to
ensure that in case the said Building has been found to be dangerous for
occupiers and also for the passers-by the Impugned Notice under Section 354
of the MMC Act is sustainable.
st
14.
She further relied on Order dated 21 March, 2025 passed by the Apex
2
Court in Municipal Corporation and Others vs. Eknath Mane & Ors .
wherein an undertaking was furnished by the Petitioners in the said case
stating that if any untoward incident happened, the Petitioners would
2 Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 28109/2024
AKN 11
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
accordingly bear all the damages incurred. The said undertaking is
deprecated by the Apex Court and held as under :
“After hearing learned senior counsel appearing for
the Petitioner(s) and the respondents (except
Respondent No. 1), we are the opinion that the orders
which have been passed by the High Court,
particularly the order dated 21.06.2022, could not have
been passed merely on an assurance or an undertaking
given by Respondent No. 1 (petitioner before the High
Court), as the question is not merely of the safety of
Respondent No. 1 but of public safety of entire
community and of all the residents who are residing in
"that dilapidated building and their neighbourhood.”
15.
In light of all the above submissions, Ms. Metakari, learned Counsel
for the Respondent- MCGM would urge that the Petition is devoid of merit
and ought to be dismissed.
Submissions of the Intervener:
16.
Learned Counsel for the Intervenor has tendered a compilation of
documents and judgments. The same is taken on record and marked “X” for
identification.
nd
17.
He placed reliance on the letter dated 2 January, 2026 (Structural
Engineer Appointment Letter) issued by the Chairman, Treasurer and
Secretary of said Society to M/s. SWAP Consultant and Associates through
which the Structural Auditor was appointed for the said Building.
18.
Learned Counsel for the Intervener further relied on the Minutes of the
AKN 12
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
th
Meeting dated 17 January, 2026 for appraisal of Audit Report received from
the SWAP consultant, wherein all members unanimously agreed to proceed
with the Deemed Conveyance as per the proposal submitted by the Kulkarni
& Associates. Furthermore, it is agreed that each member will contribute
st
Rs.32,000/- per gala/unit payable before 31 January 2026. The said Minutes
also refer to the illegal encroachments of the society area and calling upon
the concerned Members of the Society to clear the encroachment in
th
accordance with approved MCGM blue prints before 25 January, 2026
failure to which appropriate authorities would be notified. The same is duly
signed and issued by the Chairman, Treasurer and Secretary of said Society.
19.
Learned Counsel for the Intervenor vehemently relied on the
th
communication dated 25 April, 2026 issued by the Chairman of the said
Society to the Assistant Commissioner, BMC. Through the said letter the
Chairman of the said Society informed the Assistant Commissioner about
internal and external encroachments of the said Building may pose serious
threats to the Vijay Industrial Estate as per Audit Report. In the said
communication, the said Society itself has acknowledged that in pursuance
to the Notice issued by the Respondent-MCGM under Section 353-B of the
MMC Act, the said Building is in seriously deteriorated structural condition
and is liable to be classified under ‘C-1 category’, as implications of such
classification are extremely serious and include immediate threat to life and
AKN 13
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
property. By the said communication, it had also been acknowledged that
certain members have undertaken unauthorized and hazardous work
including illegal metal structures, lofts, extensions and coverings and also
imposed excess structural load beyond permissible limits and such acts cause
structural distress and increased risk to all Occupants/Members. The said
communication was also duly endorsed by the Chairman, Secretary and
Treasurer of the said Society. Relevant extract of the said letter is reproduced
herein below:
“We would like to draw your urgent attention to a highly
dangerous situation at Vijay Industrial Estate.
A loosely hanging slab located on the southern side of the
estate is in a critical condition and may collapse at any time,
posing a serious threat to life and property.
It is further brought to your notice that the area directly
beneath this slab has been illegally encroached upon by Mr.
Reheman. Despite repeated warnings and requests to
demolish the unauthorized encroachment, no action has been
taken by him. Please note Mr. Reheman does not possess any
valid registration documents for the encroached area. Also,
the above-mentioned area is not in the society blue print.
Given the imminent risk, we request the BMC to take
immediate action to: Inspect the site at the earliest
Initiate necessary action against the illegal encroachment.
In the event of any accident, collapse, fire or damage, the
Society and its Managing Committee shall not be held
responsible for consequences arising out of member-level
violations, outside encroachments which shall be entirely at
the risk, cost and liability of the concerned defaulting member
and encroachers.
We have duly discharged our responsibility by informing the
AKN 14
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation about the above-
mentioned hazardous condition. Any delay in action may lead
to serious consequences for which the managing Committee
will not be responsible.”
20.
Learned Counsel for the Intervenor vehemently submitted that the
society itself has acknowledged the critical condition of a building which
was already declared as C-1 Category, therefore at this stage the Petitioners
may not be permitted to resist the said communication and take a contrary
stand on account of a certain dispute with society members and ask for an
intervention of this Court under Article 226 Constitution of India. Thus, the
instant Writ Petition is liable to dismissed with exemplary cost.
Findings and Conclusion:
21.
We have carefully considered the submission made at Bar and perused
the material placed on record.
22.
Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is important to notice that
buildings in Mumbai that need repair are classified into the following
categories:
Category Description
C-1 Unsafe/dangerous/inhabitable structures need to be
vacated and demolished
C2A Partially unsafe/dangerous/structures requiring major
structural repairs by partially vacating the dangerous
part of the structure
C2B Structure requiring major structural repairs without
vacating the structure
AKN 15
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
C3 Minor repairs
23.
In the instant case, the said Building had been constructed in the year
1973 and is about 53 years old. It is settled principle of law under the MMC
Act that once a building completes the prescribed period of life under the
statute i.e., 30 years, a structural audit is required to be carried out for
certifying its stability and safety for human dwelling mandatorily under the
provisions of Section 353B of the MMC Act. The audit has to be carried out
in terms of the legal provisions and within the time specified and if not, then
it is the Municipal Commissioner who can ensure that such an audit is
carried out, or if there is no co-operation, he can come to an independent
conclusion. Section 353B of the MMC Act talks about Structural Stability
Certificate which reads as under:
“353B. (1) Every owner or occupier of a building in respect
of which a period of thirty years, from the date of, —
(i) issue of its completion certificate by the Corporation; or
(ii) issue of permission to occupy a building under section
353A; or
(iii) its physical occupation of at least 50 per cent., of its built-
up area,
whichever is earlier, has expired, shall cause such building to
be examined by a Structural Engineer registered with the
Corporation for the purposes of certifying that the building is
fit for human habitation (such certificate hereinafter referred
to as “the Structural Stability Certificate”). The Structural
Stability Certificate issued by such Structural Engineer shall
be submitted to the Commissioner.
(2) The Structural Stability Certificate shall be submitted
AKN 16
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
within one year from the expiry of a period of thirty years
referred to in subsection (1), and every ten years thereafter or
such earlier period as the Commissioner may determine
having regard to the condition of the building and the
corrective repairs carried out by the owner or occupier.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
the Commissioner may, at any time, after having recorded the
reasons, in writing, direct the owner or occupier of a
building, to cause such building to be examined by such
Structural Engineer and to submit to the Commissioner, the
Structural Stability Certificate, as required under sub-section
(1), within the period not exceeding thirty days as specified by
the Commissioner, in such direction.
(4) If the Structural Engineer recommends any corrective
repairs for securing the structural stability of the building,
such corrective repairs shall be carried out by the owner or
occupier of a building to the satisfaction of the
Commissioner.
(5) Any owner or occupier, as the case may be, who fails to
carry out corrective repairs for securing structural stability,
within a period of six months from the date of report of the
Structural Engineer, shall be punished with the fine as
provided in section 471.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5),
the Commissioner may, after giving the owner or occupier, a
notice in writing, require him to carry out, within the period
specified in the notice, corrective repairs for securing
structural stability of a building. If the owner or occupier
fails to carry out such corrective repairs within the period
specified in the notice, the Commissioner may carry out the
same and the expenses incurred by the Commissioner on
such repairs shall, on demand if not paid within thirty days,
be recovered from the owner or occupier as arrears of
property tax.
(7) If there is any dispute about the amount of expenses for
which demand is made under sub-section (6), an appeal may
be preferred to the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court,
but no such appeal shall be entertained by the said Chief
Judge, unless— (i) it is preferred within twenty-one days
from the date of receipt of notice of such demand; (ii) the
amount for which demand is made is deposited with the
AKN 17
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
Corporation and a true copy of the receipt showing that the
amount has been so deposited accompanies the appeal.
(8) In case the appeal is decided in favour of the appellants
and the amount of expenses deposited with the Corporation is
more than the amount payable by the appellants, the
Commissioner shall adjust the excess amount with interest at
6.25 per cent, per annum from the date on which the amount
is so deposited by the appellants, towards the property tax
payable by the owner in respect of such building thereafter.”
st
24.
In the case at hand, the Audit Report dated 21 January, 2026 of the
said Building in question has found it to be dangerous for human dwelling
and also for the passers-by. Relevant concluding part of the Audit Report
st
dated 21 January, 2026 is reproduced here under:
“XXX
16 Conclusion and Consultants Observations / key reasons
i. Whether structure is
livable/or whether it is to be
evacuated/pulled down
Structure is not safe for workable
condition.
ii. Whether structure requires
tenantable repairs/Major
structure repair and its time
frame
Structure requires urgent evacuated.
iii. Whether structure can be
allowed to Occupy during
course of repairs.
Full evacuation if required
iv. Nature/ Methodology of Refer our report
repairs
v. Whether structure repairs
immediate Propping. If so, its
propping plan/ methodology
given
Not possible
vi. Whether other immediate No Specified recommendation.
AKN 18
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
safety measures required-
What is specific
Recommendation?
Yes it is seen under no task for
extended life period.
vii. Enhancement in life of
structure after
repairs/frequency of repairs
required in extended life
period
ix. Specific remarks, whether No requirement of recondition
building needs to be
x. Whether structure in Yes and highly noticed
extremely critical condition
17 Critical Observation Refer our report
18 Classification of Bldgs. Category Auditors' final
conclusion
C1 TO BE
EVACUATED/
DEMOLITION
IMMEDIATELY
25.
Further Impugned Notice under Section 354 of the MMC Act was
rd
issued on 3 September, 2026 and it is pertinent to mention that the said
Notice was issued in respect of the whole building which has been identified
as dilapidated and dangerous. The said Notice was issued only after the
satisfaction of the Municipal Commissioner in accordance with the
provisions of Section 354 of the MMC Act which reads as under:—
“ 354. (1) If it shall at any time appear to the
Commissioner that any structure (including under this
expression any building, wall or other structure and
anything affixed to or projecting from any building, wall
or other structure) is in a ruinous condition, or likely to
fall, or in any way dangerous to any person occupying,
AKN 19
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
resorting to or passing by such structure or any other
structure or place in the neighborhood thereof, the
Commissioner may, by written notice, require the owner
or occupier of such structure to pull down, secure or
repair such structure 1[subject to the provisions of
section 342], of danger therefrom.
(2) The Commissioner may also if he thinks fit, require
the said owner or occupier, by the said notice, either
forthwith or before proceeding to pull down, secure or
repair the said structure, to set up a proper and sufficient
hoard or fence for the protection of passers-by and other
persons, with a convenient platform and hand-rail, if
there be room enough for the same and the
Commissioner shall think the same desirable, to serve as
a footway for passengers outside of such hoard or
fence.”
26.
On account of insistence of the Petitioners’ Counsel at the admission
th
stage, this Court vide Order dated 11 September, 2026 had appointed a
th
Court Commissioner, who had submitted his Report dated 17 September,
2026. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the Court Commissioner’s
Report is reproduced herein below:
“XXX
5. Prima facie this structure needs urgent &
immediate attention. Parts of load bearing walls have
been Several columns beams and staircases were
exposed with huge chunks of cement, having come off
some of which have the iron and steel bars within the
RCC (Reinforced Cement Concrete) exposed. While the
interiors of some of the premises may appear to provide
an illusion that the premises is well maintained (i.e.,
cemented patches and painting. wall paper, etc), this, in
my opinion cannot be construed to mean that the
structure of the building is not in urgent need of
immediate attention.
AKN 20
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
6. It is all the more concerning as the premises is an
Industrial estate premise with several heavy machinery
being operated in some of the Galas which not only have
a constant focused concentration of weight in particular
areas but also cause (minor) vibration during normal
operation causing a further strain on the overall
structure.
7. For all the aforementioned reasons, it is my
opinion that the building is in a dilapidated and
hazardous condition and it would be ideal to evacuate
and thereafter demolish the same at the earliest to
prevent any loss to life and/or. This concludes my
Report.
27.
The relentless contention of the learned Counsel of the Petitioners that
the declaration of C-1 classification of the said Building by the MCGM by
rd
Impugned Notice dated 3 September, 2026 is founded on the disputed Audit
st
Report dated 21 January, 2026, is not sustainable in our considered view, for
the simple reason being that the Report submitted by the Court
st
Commissioner is in consonance with the Audit Report dated 21 January
2026 submitted by Vinay A. Kania of M/s. Seemu Consultancy. Moreover,
the Petitioners have not brought on record any justifiable reason and or
circumstances to disregard such Structural Audit Report and/or the
independent Report of the Court Commissioner, so as to persuade the Court
to take a different view in the matter.
28.
One of the prayers of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is to
direct the Respondent-MCGM to refer the matter to the TAC. On contrary to
the learned Counsel for the Respondent-MCGM has submitted that, as there
AKN 21
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
was no contradictory Audit Report received, there is no question of referring
the matter to TAC. The Petitioners have, in the given factual matrix failed to
demonstrate any legal requirement to refer the matter to TAC, in the given
th
situation. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the letter dated 25 April,
2026 which has been duly signed by the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer
of the said Society to the Assistant Commissioner, BMC crystallizes the fact
that the said building is in a seriously deteriorated structural condition and
poses an eminent threat to the life and limb of the occupier/members. This
letter itself supports the MCGM’s classification of the said Building as C-1
Category.
th
29.
We find that the afore-mentioned letter dated 25 April 2026 wherein
the Petitioners are signatories would act as estoppel against the Petitioners to
take an objection on the categorization of the building as C-1, when they
have themselves acquiesced to such position. Upon a specific query put to
the Petitioners by the Court, they have not disputed to have signed such letter
and/or deny the contents thereof. The learned Counsel for the Respondents
and the Intervener are justified in raising an objection that such material and
th
relevant document/letter dated 25 April 2026 is not disclosed/suppressed by
the Petitioners. The Petitioners have no convincing answer, let alone a
plausible explanation and/or justification to controvert such position.
30.
It is in similar facts and circumstances that this Court has dismissed
AKN 22
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
the Petition in Anandashram Co-operative Housing society (Proposed) &
Ors. Vs. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai &
3
Ors. where a similar submission was raised with regard to the admission of
th
the Petitioners qua the letter dated 25 April 2026 in this case, where
Petitioners admit that the building is in dilapidated condition falling under C-
1 category. We do not see any reason, in the given factual complexion so as
to persuade us to take a different view.
31.
The record bears out that the building in question is in a precarious,
unsafe condition and needs to be repaired at the earliest for the simple reason
that it is unsafe for human habitation. The historic buildings in Mumbai are a
reminder of the city's rich and aesthetic architectural styles. Therefore, in
order to preserve the authenticity of the buildings, it is important that certain
legal measures need to be taken so that the safety and stability can be
certified under Section 353B of the MMC Act, 1888. Once we find that the
satisfaction recorded by the Municipal Commissioner is in accordance with
the due procedure prescribed by law and is not vitiated by any perversity or
any illegality, there exists no ground to interfere with the Impugned Notice.
32.
The Petitioners through their learned Counsel have handed over their
th
written submissions on 12 October 2026, after the matter was reserved for
judgment/orders. A perusal thereof would reveal that the stand taken by the
th
3
Writ Petition (L) No.34728 of 2026, decided on 8 October 2026.
AKN 23
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
Petitioners therein is not only in conformity with the case set up in the
Petition and/or pleading but also it appears that a new case has been
attempted to be set up/emerged for the first time, which is not permissible.
However, the stand of the Petitioners in the written submissions qua
demolition of the subject property is that they are ready and willing to repair
the building and do not resist its demolition if, after a lawful and complete
process, demolition is genuinely found to be warranted. Even on such ground
if the stand taken by the Petitioners in the written submissions for the first
time, is to be accepted, the demolition of the subject building, in our view
being in accordance/conformity with law, does not warrant any interference.
33.
This is not a fit case where any independent structural audit can be
conducted in the given factual position, considering the precarious
dilapidated condition of the said building, accepting such contention would
lead to a situation where there is no end to such process, merely because the
report does not suit or meet the requirements of some of the
tenants/occupants. We cannot countenance such situation.
34.
In our view, judicial notice ought to be taken of the various media
reports reporting collapse of many old structures in Mumbai causing serious
loss of human lives and limbs. Accepting the case of the Petitioners and
thereby intervening in the proceedings, in the existing facts and
circumstances, would not only tantamount to putting the life of the
AKN 24
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59

J-WP(L)-31674-2026. (OS).doc
owners/occupants and other residents of the building in jeopardy, but also
pose an imminent danger to safety of the public as well, which cannot be
accepted.
35.
In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the
rd
Impugned Notice dated 3 September, 2026 issued under Section 354 of the
MMC Act. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Dismissed.
36.
Considering the precarious condition of the said building and the
serious safety concerns, we accordingly direct the Petitioners to vacate the
premises within three weeks from the date of uploading of this judgment.
37.
In view of the Dismissal of the Writ Petition, pending Interim
Application does not survives and is also Disposed Of.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
AKN 25
Uploaded on - 22/10/2026 Downloaded on - 22/10/2026 18:28:59
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)