National Insurance Company Limited Through Its General Manager v. The State Of Maharashtra And 8 ORS.

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.810 OF 2017 National Insurance Company Limited ... Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

... Respondents Mr. Mohan Jayakar a/w Mr. Ashwin Shete and Ms. Aakansha Agrawal i/by Jayakar & Partners for the Petitioner.

Mr. Abhay Patki, Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1, 5 and 6.

Ms. Kejali Mastakar for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 - BMC. Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Mikhail Behl, Mr. Rahul Dwarkadas, Mr. Ziyad Madan i/by Veritas Legal for Respondent No.8. CORAM : A.S. OKA & M.S. SONAK, JJ.

DATE :

12th DECEMBER, 2017 P.C.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the eighth respondent, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first, fifth and sixth respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the second, third and fourth respondents. The main issue to be decided in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is as regards the present structural status of the building which is the subject matter of this Petition. There are reports on record filed by the Municipal Officers

dealing with the structural status of the building. The last of such report is dated 27th November, 2017 which is signed by the Ward Executive Engineer, G/ South Ward in terms of the order of this Court dated 21st November, 2017. The said report records a conclusion on the basis of visual observations that the subject building has been already categorized as C2B (requiring major structural repairs without evacuating). The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the eighth respondent on instructions states that the eighth respondent is not disputing the said conclusion reached by the Municipal Officer. He, however, invited our attention to paragraph 4 of the affidavit of Ms. Minal Rao dated 3rd November, 2017 filed on behalf of the eighth respondent.

He states that the eighth respondent will abide by the statements made in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that as of today he is not in a position to make any statement as to whether the petitioner is accepting categorization as C2B. If the petitioner wants to challenge the said categorization, the petitioner will have to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

Now the Municipal Corporation has come to a conclusion that the building will have to be categorized as C2B. If necessary, the Municipal Corporation is always entitled to take recourse to Section 354 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 or any other provision of law. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as stated in the Petition, reiterates that the petitioner is keen on ensuring that the subject building is repaired.

Therefore, we need not keep this Petition pending and the same is disposed of by passing the following order :-

ORDER

(i) If the petitioner is disputing the conclusion arrived at by the Municipal Corporation that the subject building falls in category C2B, it will be always open for the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings in accordance with law;

(ii) The appropriate authority of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation will consider the report dated 27th November, 2017 and shall take appropriate action on the basis of the said report dated 27th November, 2017 in accordance with law. Needless to add that no adverse

action shall be taken against any of the affected parties without giving an opportunity of being heard to them; (iii) We accept the statement made on behalf of the eighth respondent that the said respondent is accepting that categorization as C2B is correct. We also accept the statements made by the eighth respondent in the affidavit dated 3rd November, 2017 and in paragraph 4 thereof;

(iv) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the present structural status of the said building and all contentions in that behalf are kept open;

(v) The Petition is disposed of on above terms;

(vi) As the earlier directions issued by the Municipal Corporation to the petitioner were before the last report dated 27th November, 2017 and as we have granted opportunity to the Municipal corporation to take action in accordance with law, the said directions shall not be enforced.

(M.S. SONAK, J) (A.S. OKA, J)