Minor Deviations in Lift Installations for Elderly Residents Do Not Warrant Absolute Stop Work Orders.

The Petitioners, elderly residents of Purbachal Nabarun Co-operative Housing Society (registered in 1983), sought to install two lifts in their four-storied residential towers due to age-related mobility constraints

The Co-operative Society initially granted conditional approval on September 16, 2023, and later approved structural drawings for several blocks

The Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation (BMC) subsequently issued a building sanction permit on September 27, 2024

After construction commenced, some members objected, leading to a civil suit (T.S. 67 of 2025) and a subsequent "stop work" notice issued by the BMC on July 8, 2025, alleging deviations from the sanctioned plan

An inspection report noted that the lift pits exceeded sanctioned dimensions by approximately 0.3 to 0.35 meters

1. Whether the "stop work" notice issued by the Municipal Corporation was sustainable given the nature of the deviations and the necessity of the lifts for elderly residents

2. Whether the internal objections and policy reversals by the Co-operative Society could override the previously granted sanctions and the construction already underway

The court applied the principles of municipal law regarding sanctioned building plans and the doctrine of minor deviations, emphasizing that while illegal constructions generally shouldn't be permitted, minor deviations can be revisited by authorities

The court also referred to the precedent of Satyanarayan Khaitan v. The Joint Chief Electrical Inspector Member Secretary (Lifts) regarding administrative permissions for lift installations

The principle that a Co-operative Society’s prior administrative decisions and sanctions create a reliance upon which members act, limiting the Society’s ability to arbitrarily obstruct construction after significant commencement

The court observed that the aging population’s mobility is essential for the "meaningful enjoyment of life" and that modern technology/norms now mandate lifts for buildings of a certain height

It found that the deviation cited by the BMC (a discrepancy in the lift pit size of roughly 0.35 meters) was "minor" and largely related to work embedded below the ground

The court criticized the Secretary of the Society for making a "U-turn" by endorsing objections after formally signing the approval letters

It reasoned that since the Municipal Corporation had already sanctioned the plan, it was presumed to have considered technical aspects like water lines; thus, the Society's eleventh-hour technical objections were "fanciful" and could not stall a project that was nearly complete

It directed the BMC to revisit the show-cause notice and perform a fresh inspection after four weeks, focusing on whether the "outer structure" (excluding the embedded pit) conforms to the sanctioned plan

The petitioners were ordered not to make the lifts operational without final municipal permission and were granted liberty to approach the Civil Court to modify the existing status quo orders in the pending suit