Bombay HC slams high-handedness of officials: BMC told to pay Rs 2 lakh for demolishing temporary shelter for cancer patients

A single-judge bench of Justice Gauri V Godse on April 4 passed an order on appeal by M/s. Mehta & Co.through its partner Adarsh Varma, who occupied the said structure to provide charitable services of food and shelter to poor and needy cancer patients.

The structure, which was on a plot adjacent to the TMH, situated in Parel was demolished on January 4, this year.

The plaintiff firm through advocate Kunal Bhanage had claimed that the structure was pulled even as their suit against the demolition was pending before the city civil court.

The HC said it was an “absolutely unfortunate case where the plaintiff’s structure was high-handedly and illegally demolished by officers of BMC under the garb of implementation of redevelopment scheme under Regulation 33(9) of Development Control and Promotion Regulation (DCPR) 2034.”

The firm had approached the City Civil Court on January 2 against BMC’s decision asking it to vacate the structure within seven days, failing which the demolition action would be undertaken. However, on January 4 itself, BMC officers demolished the structure.

However, the civil court judge refused to grant relief of reconstruction of the structure to the plaintiff, prompting an appeal in HC against the same.

“Unholy haste shown on behalf of the corporation officers to demolish the structure without any intimation, and on the day when the plaintiff was to pray for interim relief before the court after notice to the corporation, smacks of mala fides and arbitrariness,” the HC observed.

“The corporation’s officers have shown a complete lack of sensitivity while proceeding with the demolition of the structure which the plaintiff used to provide food and shelter to cancer patients undergoing treatment in Tata Memorial Hospital,” Justice Godse said, adding that the action caused “irreparable loss” to the plaintiff.

The judge further stated “In a city like Mumbai, it is very difficult to get temporary shelter. Thus, I have no doubt in holding that the action of demolition has not only deprived the plaintiff of his rights but also deprived the cancer patients of their right to temporary shelter at the time of taking treatment.”

The HC said it was “indeed a rare and exceptional case where the grant of mandatory injunction must be issued in favour of the plaintiff,” failing which ” it would amount to putting a premium on the high-handedness and arbitrary action of the corporation’s officers.”

Noting that the civil court ignored the principle of mandatory injunction, the HC directed the BMC to provide temporary accommodation of 1319.97 square feet in the vicinity of the firm within four weeks. The plaintiff will be entitled to such transit accommodation till the rehab component is offered to him under the scheme.

The HC further said that the BMC’s officers were also bound by the fundamental duty under Article 51-A of the Constitution for every citizen to follow and abide by the laws.

Allowing the appeal, it directed BMC to pay Rs 2 lakh to the plaintiff as cost of litigation.