IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that the Technical Advisory Committee's assessments on structural safety are authoritative and not subject to judicial review unless there are clear procedural violations, reinforcing the principle that public safety takes precedence over individual property rights.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

G.S.PATEL,J. - There is a persistent attempt to misread, misconstrue and misapply the interim directions of this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 1135 of 2014 (later finally numbered as Writ Petition No. 1080 of 2015, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v State of Maharashtra & Ors). There, a Division Bench of this Court made an interim order on 23/6/2014 on a case presented to it that buildings that were otherwise structurally sound, or at best required repairs, were being declared as structurally unsafe, unfit for human habitation, ruinous and dangerous and were being ordered to be pulled down. The allegation was that this was done at the instance of rapacious landlords and property owners with the active connivance of municipal officials. The Court therefore, framed a series of guidelines by its order dtd. 23/6/2014. The Writ Petition was ultimately disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court (AS Oka, J, as he then was and RI Chagla, J) on 28/2/2018.2018 SCC OnLine Bom 816. By that time, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ("MCGM") had adopted the guidelines framed by the interim order of 23/6/2014. An earlier version of these 'policy guidelines' of the MCGM were put on affidavit before the Division Bench (of Oka J, as he then was and RI Chagla J) at the final disposal of the Petition. The final policy guidelines are of 25/5/2018, captioned GUIDELINES FOR DECLARING PRIVATE AND MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS AS C-1 CATEGORY (DANGEROUS, UNSAFE).

2. Some of the observations in the final order disposing of that writ petition are important for our purposes today. The Division Bench said:

5. The necessity of passing interim order dtd. 23/6/2014 was the absence of a policy or guidelines. That is very clear from the observations made in the paragraph 8 of the said order. In view of the policy guidelines which are placed on record by the affidavit dtd. 8/2/2018 as modified on 23/2/2018 now it is no longer necessary for this Court to exercise Writ Jurisdiction by issuing policy guidelines. We may make a useful reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Census Commissioner v. R. Krishnamurthy [(2015) 2 SCC 796]. In paragraph 25 of the said decision, the Apex Court reiterated the well settled legal position that it is not within the domain of the Court to legislate and it is the function of the Courts to interpret the law by adopting certain creative process. In paragraph 25, the Apex Court observed thus:--

"25. Interference with the policy decision and issue of a mandamus to frame a policy in a particular manner are absolutely different.

The Act has conferred power on the Central Government to issue notification regarding the manner in which the census has to be carried out and the Central Government has issued notifications, and the competent authority has issued directions. It is not within the domain of the court to legislate. The courts do interpret the law and in such interpretation certain creative process is involved. The courts have the jurisdiction to declare the law as unconstitutional. That too, where it is called for. The court may also fill up the gaps in certain spheres applying the doctrine of constitutional silence or abeyance. But, the courts are not to plunge into policy-making by adding something to the policy by way of issuing a writ of mandamus. There the judicial restraint is called for remembering what we have stated in the beginning. The courts are required to understand the policy decisions framed by the executive. If a policy decision or a notification is arbitrary, it may invite the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution. But when the notification was not under assail and the same is in consonance with the Act, it is really unfathomable how the High Court could issue directions as to the manner in which a census would be carried out by adding certain aspects. It is, in fact, issuance of a direction for framing a policy in a specific manner."

(Emphasis in the original order)

6.