Parties must comply with judicial orders to uphold the authority of the court and the rule of law.

Judgment :

Kamal Khata, J. 

1. The Petitioners are occupants of ground floor of the premises bearing No.14/A, New Hindustan CHS Ltd situated on Plot No.272, 36th Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400050 (‘writ premises’). By this Petition, the Petitioners challenge the Notice dated 14^th March, 2020 issued under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 (‘MRTP Act’) as well as the speaking Order dated 29^th April 2022 passed by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (‘BMC’). The speaking Order identifies seven violations, which are in contravention of the approved plan dated 5^th January 1967.

2. The nine grounds listed at pages 18 to 20 highlight three principal grievances:

a) that, the Petitioners were not granted an opportunity of being heard,

b) that, the Petitioners have not carried out any unauthorised construction and whatever renovations they had carried out were long ago with the permission of the society, and

c) that, it is Respondent No. 3 who is attempting to evict the Petitioners by instigating the BMC to act against them.

3. By an Order dated 25^th November, 2024, this Court directed the Executive Engineer of the BMC to conduct an inspection of the writ premises, as well as the 1^st floor residence of Respondent No.3, and to submit a report. The Designated Officer of BMC subsequently filed his report dated 5^th December, 2024, identifying seven instances of unauthorized work within the writ premises occupied by the Petitioners and five instances of unauthorized work on the 1^st floor premises occupied by Respondent No.3.

4. On 12^th December, 2024, during the hearing, the Petitioners gave an undertaking to this Court, to adopt all necessary remedial measures to restore the ground floor of the writ premises to its original position by removing and/or demolishing the unauthorised construction within a period of two weeks, i.e., by 26^th December, 2024. The matter was then adjourned to 9^th January, 2025 for compliance.

5. On 9^th January, 2025, Mr. Aseem Naphade, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, attempted to explain the reasons for their non- compliance with the undertaking. He submitted that, certain unauthorized works could not be removed as doing so posed a risk of the floor above caving in. He further contended that, being lay persons, the Petitioners were unaware of these potential consequences and technicalities at the time of giving the undertaking.

6. However, Ms. Tondwalkar, learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2-BMC, countered this assertion, stating that, as per the Engineer’s opinion, the unauthorised work could indeed be removed. She further confirmed and reiterated this position after obtaining instructions from the Executive Engineer who was present in Court.

7. Upon hearing both learned Counsel and upon perusal of the report and photographs, we find that there has been a willful and deliberate breach of the undertaking given to this Court during the hearing on 12^th December, 2024 wherein it was assured that all remedial measures would be undertaken to restore the ground floor to its original condition. Notably, the Petitioners had initially denied any illegality; however following the BMC’s report highlighting the irregularities, they agreed to remove the unauthorised works and restore the premises to its original condition as per the sanctioned plan.

8. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioners on 9^th January 2025. Additionally, we directed the BMC to submit a report accounting for both compliances and non-compliances, and the matter was adjourned.

9. BMC filed yet another report dated 23^rd January 2025, indicating non-compliance with five out of the seven unauthorised works, partial