Public Safety Paramount; No TAC Reference for Dilapidated Building When Owner Suppresses Facts & Shows Gross Negligence: Bombay High Court - 2025-07-04

Bombay High Court Upholds Demolition of 129-Year-Old Building, Slams Society for Suppressing Facts and Prioritizing Commerce Over Safety

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court, in a strongly-worded judgment, dismissed a petition by Vikas Premises Co-operative Society Ltd., refusing to halt the demolition of the 129-year-old " Vikas Building " in Mumbai's Fort area. The Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Arif S. Doctor imposed costs of ₹5 lakh on the petitioner society for its "unconscionable" conduct, which included suppressing crucial reports and prioritizing commercial interests over public safety.

The Court held that procedural mechanisms like referring conflicting structural audit reports to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) cannot be invoked by a party that has shown gross negligence, suppressed facts, and allowed a building to become an imminent threat to human life.

Case Background

The case revolved around ' Vikas Building ', a ground+4 storey commercial structure categorized as 'C-1' (extremely ruinous) and facing imminent collapse. Following an emergency call from the Disaster Control Cell on June 20, 2025, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) evacuated the building, disconnected its water and electricity supply, and issued a notice under Section 354 of the MMC Act, 1888, for its immediate demolition.

The petitioner society, which owns the building, challenged these actions, arguing they were arbitrary and illegal.

Petitioner's Arguments

Senior Advocate Mr. Aniruddh Joshi, representing the society, argued that the BMC’s actions were premature. He contended that the BMC had first issued a notice under Section 353B, giving the society 30 days to submit a structural audit report, but then proceeded with drastic measures before this period expired.

The petitioner’s primary plea was that there were two conflicting structural audit reports:

1. Mahimtura Consultants' Report: This report, initially obtained by the society in 2024, suggested the building was repairable. However, the same consultant later classified the building as C-1 in June 2025, stating it needed to be evacuated immediately. The society claimed this re-classification was done without its authority.

2. Vishwakarma Enterprises' Report: A new report commissioned by the society suggested that the building could be repaired with major structural strengthening.

Based on these conflicting views, the petitioner insisted that the matter be referred to the TAC, as per established procedure, before any demolition could take place.

Respondent's Arguments

Ms. K. H. Mastakar, appearing for the BMC, defended the corporation's swift action, citing the extreme urgency of the situation. She highlighted that a call from the Disaster Control Cell on June 20, 2025, reported that the building was "in a dangerous condition and likely to fall."

The BMC’s counsel pointed out that on-site inspections revealed "major vertical cracks" and that the society’s own consultant (Mahimtura) had confirmed that the society had failed to take any remedial action for over a year, leading to the structure's severe deterioration.

Court's Analysis: Suppression of Facts and Paramountcy of Public Safety

The High Court's decision turned on critical facts that the petitioner had suppressed in its petition, which came to light only after the court's probing.

The Bench discovered that the society was in possession of another report from K.R. Trivedi , dated May 7, 2024, which had already certified the building as "very old, dilapidated and required to be vacated immediately." The Court noted this was a "material suppression" and that the petitioner had approached the court with "unclean hands."

The judgment quoted:

"In our view, this amounts to material suppression, as the Petitioner had in its possession the report which showed that the building was infact C-1. It was incumbent upon the Petitioner to have specifically set this out and then, if at all, explained the same. The Petitioner having not done so, has clearly approached this Court with unclean hands. On this ground alone, the Petition must fail."

Furthermore, the Court found that the society's managing committee, despite being aware of the grave condition, had consciously decided in February 2025 not to carry out urgent beam and column repairs, citing a potential redevelopment plan that never materialized. The Court deemed this conduct "absolutely unconscionable" for putting "commercial considerations above issues of not only the safety of their own members but also the public at large."

Relying on its own suo motu PIL in the Jilani Building collapse case , the Court reiterated that public safety is the paramount consideration.

"The very purpose of the TAC...was to reconcile conflicting structural audit reports. However, this mechanism was intended for situations where there was a genuine dispute...This procedure was not contemplated to aide those Societies which have done absolutely nothing to ensure that their premises are kept well maintained and don’t pose a risk...In any event, the safety of human life and property in the vicinity takes precedence over any so-called procedural lapses, even assuming such existed."

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the BMC's demolition notice. It imposed costs of ₹5,00,000 on the society, to be deposited with the Cancer Ward of KEM Hospital, Mumbai.

Refusing the petitioner's last-minute plea to allow members to remove their belongings, the Court stated that entry into the building would be at their own risk and that the society would be held liable for any untoward incident.