2018:BHC-OS:3265-DB pmw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1080 OF 2015 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.394 OF 2017 Bai Velbai Velji Bhimji Charitable Trust & Ors. … Applicants/

Interveners In the matter of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Petitioner Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel a/w Ms. K.H. Mastakar and Ms.

Vandana Mahadik for the Petitioner.

Mr. Abhinav Chandrachud i/by Mr. Shailendra J. Singh for the Applicants.

Ms. Uma Palsule - Desai, AGP for the Respondent – State.

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

DATE : 28^th FEBRUARY, 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.S. Oka, J.)

1 The submissions were heard on the earlier date. This is a Writ Petition filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai which has been established under the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short “the said Act of 1888”). Though the Petition relates to a specific building which is described in paragraph 4(i) of the Writ Petition which has been admittedly demolished during the pendency of this Petition, the Municipal Corporation has invited the attention of the Court to several difficulties faced by it while implementing the provisions of Section 354 of the said Act of 1888 and other related provisions. The difficulties are pointed out especially when the Municipal Corporation exercises the power under Section 354 of the said Act of 1888 by directing the demolition of a building in dilapidated/ruinous condition which cannot be repaired.

2 Before we advert to various provisions, we may refer to various orders passed by Division Benches of this Court from time to time. The material order is dated 23^rd June 2014 which is passed by a Division Bench of this Court on the basis of the minutes of the order taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. Several interim directions have been issued by the said order. It is this interim order which is operative and which is being implemented by the petitioner – Municipal Corporation. The directions issued in the said order are not confined only to the subject building but the same generally apply to exercise of powers by the petitioner – Municipal Corporation under Section 354. Paragraph 8 of the order dated 23^rd June 2014 records that to ensure that powers under Section 354 of the said Act of 1888 can be exercised effectively, it is necessary to issue certain guidelines. Paragraph 9 contains the said guidelines. After this Petition was placed before various Benches of this Court, ultimately on 15^th January 2015 the Division Bench of this Court observed that the Petition was kept pending as the Court was informed that the Municipal Corporation was in the process of taking a major policy decision and the same has not been taken. By the said order, parties were put to notice that the Petition will be taken up for final hearing.

3 There is an affidavit filed by Shri Vishvas Venkatrao Shankarwar dated 8^th February 2018. In paragraph 1 of the affidavit, he has stated that the petitioner – Corporation has framed guidelines for declaring private and municipal buildings as falling in 'C-1' category (Dangerous/ Unsafe). The said guidelines have been approved by the Municipal Commissioner. On the last date, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation tendered across the Bar a note dated 22^nd February 2018 signed by the Director, (E.S.& P.) and Chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) appointed under the interim orders of this Court. The said note refers to three suggestions for the modifications in the policy approved by the Municipal Commissioner. The note records that two suggestions can be accepted and third suggestion cannot be accepted. The said note has been approved by the Municipal Commissioner on 23^rd February 2018. Thus, the policy annexed to