IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the exercise of sealing powers under the Municipalities Act must be proportional to the alleged violations, and minor renovations do not warrant such extreme measures.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Mr Bhobe, who appears with Ms Annelise Fernandes for the petitioners, Mr I. Santimano for respondent no.1 and Mr Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate with Mr G. Panandiker for respondent nos.2 & 3.

2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The challenge in this petition is to the orders dtd. 12/5/2014 and 28/8/2020 made by the Chief Officer and the Revisional Authority, respectively, sealing the petitioners' tenanted premises.

4. Respondent nos.2 and 3 (landlords) filed complaints about some illegal construction being undertaken by the petitioners in the tenanted premises. Acting on such complaints, Stop Work Orders were issued to the petitioners. However, the impugned orders state that the petitioners continued with the illegal construction despite such Stop Work Orders. Ultimately, by order dtd. 12/5/2014, the Chief Officer directed the sealing of the tenanted premises. The Chief Officer also eventually made a demolition order dtd. 20/10/2020.

5. The demolition order dtd. 20/10/2020 is appealed by the petitioners before the Municipal Appellate Tribunal vide Appeal No.14/2020. The same is pending, and the demolition is stayed pending disposal of the appeal.

6. The petitioners challenged the sealing order dtd. 12/5/2014 before the Secretary (Urban Development) - Revisional Authority. By order dtd. 28/8/2020, the Revisional Authority has dismissed the revision and upheld the sealing order.

7. Thus, the impugned orders proceeded on the basis that the petitioners were indeed undertaking illegal construction in the tenanted premises and persisted with such construction even though the Chief Officer issued Stop Work Orders.

8. In the above regard, reference can be usefully made to the documents of transgression dtd. 17/4/2014 and 9/5/2014, based upon which action was initiated against the petitioners for demolition and sealing of the tenanted premises.

9. In the document of transgression dtd. 17/4/2014, the description of the transgression reads as follows:-

"DESCRIPTION OF TRANSGRESSION

The party has constructed illegally renovated internally existing shop No.14/482 by doing POP work, Furniture, Electrification, etc. situated at New Market Margao Goa."

10. In the document of transgression dtd. 9/5/2014, the description of the transgression reads as follows:-

"DESCRIPTION OF TRANSGRESSION

The party has constructed illegally carried on with the work after issu. of SCN dtd. 22/04/2014 the wall were plastered + finished plywood platform of ht appxmt - 15 cm resembling like a step all round three side wall. A P.O.P. false ceiling structure with GI bracing nearing completion is also noted, A Woddem/Plywood mezzanine floor is also noted above P.O.P. false ceiling, however it could not ascertain whether it is new or old."

11. The petitioners' case was that no illegal constructions were taken, and plastering and painting of walls or providing some plywood platform or P.O.P. false ceiling does not mean any construction. Mr Bhobe submitted that all these are standard carpentry and furnishing works which can hardly be styled as an undertaking of any illegal constructions.

12. Mr Bhobe submitted that the tenanted premises always had a wooden mezzanine i.e. "a wooden mala" for storage purposes. He states that the petitioners have not constructed any new mezzanine as alleged.

13. Mr Bhobe submitted that, in any case, the issue of demolition is being considered by the Municipal Appellate Tribunal. He, however, presents that there was no illegal construction, and nothing would eventually be required to be demolished. He, therefore, submits that the power of sealing the premises should not have been exercised. He offers that such exercise is grossly disproportionate even to the allegations made by respondents nos.2 & 3 in their complaints.

14. Mr Bhobe submits that there was no defiance of any Stop Work Orders. However, the furnishings m