In a recent judicial development, the Bombay High Court has taken suo motu contempt action against two flat owners who undertook significant structural modifications without obtaining the requisite permissions from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). The court's decision underscores the judiciary's intolerance towards unauthorized construction activities and highlights the civic body's failure to enforce compliance with municipal regulations.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a housing society, lodged a complaint with the BMC concerning two of its members (referred to as Respondent Nos. 1 and 2). These members had amalgamated their flat with an adjacent unit, which belonged to a deceased individual, by demolishing the dividing walls. The society expressed concerns that such unauthorized structural alterations could compromise the building's structural integrity. Furthermore, the respondents did not provide any evidence of obtaining the necessary permissions from the BMC for these modifications, nor did they substantiate their legal ownership of the adjoining flat. Despite the society's complaints, the BMC's response was limited to issuing three warning notices to the respondents, without taking substantive action to revert the flats to their original state.
Legal Proceedings and Observations
The housing society escalated the matter by filing a suit in the City Civil Court. The court appointed a Commissioner to inspect the premises, who confirmed that the respondents had indeed removed the walls between the two flats. Based on this report, the court ruled in favor of the society's motion. Subsequently, the BMC issued a notice under Section 351 of the BMC Act to the respondents. In response, the respondents filed a civil application before the High Court. However, a single bench of the High Court permitted the BMC to proceed with necessary actions against the flat owners.
Despite these legal interventions, the respondents failed to restore the flats to their original configuration. A division bench comprising Justice Kamal Khata and Justice A.S. Gadkari observed that, irrespective of the respondents' legal ownership of both flats, they were obligated to submit proposed alteration plans and obtain structural stability reports before executing such significant structural changes. The bench emphasized that a law-abiding citizen would have either sought the necessary permissions prior to making alterations or, at the very least, voluntarily restored the flats to their original state upon realizing the breach. The respondents' failure to do so was deemed a clear act of contempt. Consequently, the court initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Critique of BMC's Inaction
The court did not limit its censure to the flat owners. It also reprimanded the BMC for its dereliction of duty in enforcing its own orders and ensuring compliance with municipal regulations. The bench remarked that this case exemplified yet another instance of the BMC's failure to fulfill its statutory obligations, particularly in executing its own orders to restore the flats to their original state. The court expressed concern that such inaction compels law-abiding citizens to seek judicial intervention for matters that fall squarely within the administrative domain of the BMC. The bench found it appalling that the BMC had even failed to comply with court orders, thereby undermining the rule of law.
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment serves as a stern warning to individuals contemplating unauthorized structural modifications without adhering to due process and obtaining necessary approvals. It reinforces the principle that personal ownership does not exempt individuals from complying with municipal regulations designed to ensure the safety and structural integrity of buildings.
Moreover, the court's criticism of the BMC highlights the necessity for municipal authorities to actively enforce their regulations and comply with judicial directives. The judiciary's rebuke underscores the expectation that civic bodies must act decisively against unauthorized constructions to uphold the rule of law and maintain public trust in administrative institutions.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court's initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings against the flat owners, coupled with its reprimand of the BMC, underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding municipal laws and ensuring that civic authorities execute their duties diligently. This case serves as a pertinent reminder of the legal obligations of property owners and the imperative for municipal bodies to enforce compliance, thereby safeguarding the structural integrity of buildings and the broader public interest.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.