Shocking that well-placed educated persons ‘illegally' reside in Tardeo high-rise risking lives, BMC can't shut eyes: HC
The HC questioned BMC whether it was going to 'shut its eyes' to the violations and 'casually' consider the issue. It asked the civic body to file an affidavit detailing an action proposed by it against the violations and steps to be taken against such occupiers, after which it will pass an order which will set precedent for such buildings across the city.
A bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor was hearing a batch of pleas pertaining to the tower of Willingdon View Cooperative Housing Society, Tulsiwadi, Tardeo occupied by 50 flat purchasers of total 62 flats.
On June 30, the HC had noted that there were 'glaring illegalities' in the building as it did not have any fire NOC or any approval from the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) of the BMC and there was no Occupation Certificate (OC) granted for nearly half of the floors (from 17 to 34).
The HC had slammed the BMC for failing to take drastic action against 'daylight violations' and had said that prima facie the families were living 'illegally' at their own risk and consequences.
On Thursday, senior advocate S U Kamdar for BMC submitted that as far as fire NOC was concerned, there cannot be any 'compromise' or 'regularisation' and the society will have to remove the offending portions and correct the same as per fire requirement. He added that in case of OC, certain approvals are required to be availed from Commissioner, after which there can be a regularisation if permissible.
'If fire NOC is non-negotiable, then what would be the status of the present residents? It is a 'serious issue' on which we really want to pass appropriate orders. What would be the stand of the corporation on a building which is being occupied without fire NOC? What should be the status of all such occupiers and what steps should be taken? Can they continue to reside? This is going to set an example to all those buildings and high-rises across the city,' the bench orally remarked.
The judges added, 'We want to hear from the BMC whether it should consider this casually by saying that you (occupiers) please continue… Is BMC going to shut your eyes or are going to take some action? We want BMC to be impeccable in implementing rules and regulations.'
Kamdar said that BMC had taken action and had issued several notices to the society.
'We want a statement on affidavit as to what should be done as on date when the fire NOC is not there. If clear stand is not there, we will interpret that it is a tacit approval and this appears to be the general policy of the Municipal Corporation and all buildings which are occupied without fire NOC, they can continue to do so and lives of the people can be risked in this manner,' the bench said.
'They (occupiers) are a society of well-placed educated people who continue to reside in a building, which poses such a grave risk to the lives of their families…it is shocking. We are concerned with a larger issue…. We are not going to permit any illegality to happen in any building. Because, things ought not to be looking as if it is beyond a municipal corporation to handle this situation in the city. Every time it should give an impression that SRA, MHADA, BMC or other municipal corporations are least bothered about law and everything comes to the court,' the bench added.
It said it would not permit occupation without OC and suggested the flat owners make 'alternative arrangements for temporary residence.' The HC posted the matter to July 10.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
39 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Aurangabad Bench directs FIR in Dalit law student's custodial death case
In a significant development in the case concerning the alleged custodial death of 35-year-old Dalit law student Somnath Suryawanshi, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (July 2, 2025) directed the Parbhani police to register a First Information Report (FIR) within a week, noting prima facie evidence of custodial torture and violation of fundamental rights. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh passed the interim order in response to a petition filed by Mr. Suryawanshi's 61-year-old mother, Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi. The petitioner alleged that her son was subjected to brutal torture during his illegal detention following a protest in Parbhani on December 11, 2024, and that authorities subsequently attempted to cover up his death as a cardiac incident. Mr. Suryawanshi, a final-year law student and a member of a Scheduled Caste family from Latur, was reportedly arrested while filming a protest against the desecration of a replica of the Constitution near a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The petition alleged that despite the peaceful nature of the demonstration, he and several others were picked up during an indiscriminate police crackdown, subjected to custodial assault, and denied timely medical attention. The petition stated, 'In the videos, it could be seen that Somnath was carrying the book of the Constitution of India and recording the incident in the protest. His arrest was illegal and then he was subjected to inhuman atrocities. He as well as other persons were produced before the Magistrate on 12.12.2024. The others were also subjected to brutality and their injuries were visible, swollen, however, they were afraid to speak to the Magistrate due to the threats those were given. The Court had granted police custody of two days. Further brutal assault was given to Somnath. His situation had worsened when he was again produced before the Magistrate on 14.12.2024. Thereafter, his custody was transferred to Magisterial custody. Around 6.49 a.m. suddenly Somnath died on 15.12.2024, while in judicial custody.' It was further submitted that police claimed Mr. Suryawanshi had complained of chest pain prior to his death. 'The police had then informed around 9.00 a.m. of 15.12.2024 that whether Somnath was her son and what his caste is. It was then informed to her that Somnath passed away due to heart attack. In the post-mortem primary reasons were assigned by the concerned Doctor as 'shock due to multiple injuries',' the petition stated. The petitioner also alleged that on reaching Parbhani, she was taken by Police Officer Ashok Ghorband to the Inspector General of Police, where she was informed that Somnath's brothers could be offered police jobs and was advised to perform the last rites in Latur instead of Parbhani. She further claimed she was offered ₹50 lakh to refrain from filing a complaint. She declined, demanding that her son's death be acknowledged as custodial murder and not classified as death by natural causes. The court noted that the post-mortem, conducted by a seven-member medical team, had recorded 24 visible injuries and concluded that the cause of death was 'shock following multiple injuries'. A judicial inquiry under Section 196 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) also reportedly found gross human rights violations and directly linked the death to custodial assault. 'This Court cannot remain a mute spectator when constitutional rights of a person in custody are prima facie violated,' the Bench observed, criticising the State for failing to register a cognisable offence despite substantial evidence from the post-mortem, inquest report, and the magistrate's findings. The Bench further questioned the delay by the CID in acting on the findings and expressed concern over the credibility of the internal inquiry, which bypassed the autopsy doctors and instead sought a second opinion from J.J. Hospital, Mumbai. The court has directed that an FIR be registered based on the petitioner's complaint dated December 18, 2024, and that the investigation be handed over to a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The prior order restraining CID officer D.B. Talpe from submitting a final report has been vacated following this direction. While passing only an interim order with respect to the FIR, the court has kept the remaining prayers - including demands for the suspension of officers involved and the framing of custodial death guidelines - pending for further hearing on July 30.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Gujarat HC initiates contempt proceedings against man who ‘sat on toilet' during virtual hearing
Days after a video of a man attending a virtual proceeding of the Gujarat High Court while sitting on a toilet was widely shared on social media, the HC directed the Registry to register a suo motu contempt proceeding against the resident of Surat. A Division Bench of Justice AS Supehia and Justice RT Vachhani passed an oral order on June 30, which was uploaded Thursday, directing the Registry to register suo motu contempt proceedings against Abdul Samad 'upon verification', and to produce a 'necessary report' before the next date of hearing. 'After the registration of contempt proceedings, the Registry shall issue the notice to the contempt or as to why he should not be prosecuted and punished for committing Contempt of Court as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. A suo motu proceedings shall be listed after a period of two weeks,' the court said in the oral order. Stating that the Presiding Judge of a court may direct to stop live streaming in such situations, the court also directed the Registrar, Information Technology to 'apprise this court about the mechanism to stop contumacious litigants in participating in livestreaming proceedings'. The court said that 'such disorderly and uncontrolled behaviour has become frequent'. The incident took place on June 20, when Samad, a complainant in an FIR lodged at the Kim police station in Surat district, had joined the virtual proceedings of the court of Justice Nirzar Desai and was seen sitting on a toilet while awaiting his turn to consent to quashing a petition. 'The infamous video tarnishing the image of this Court is widely circulated in social media and is required to be immediately banned and deleted,' the Court said. In the now-viral video clip of the live streaming of the High Court proceedings, Samad was initially seen in a close up with headphones. However, as he set his phone aside moments later, the video shows him on a toilet. He is then seen washing, and walking out of the bathroom to a different surrounding while awaiting his turn. Earlier in March this year, the Gujarat High Court had imposed a fine of Rs 2 lakh on a litigant who had joined a virtual hearing from a lavatory and sentenced him to community service on an eight hour shift daily for two weeks — cleaning and watering the garden of the HC in Sola in Ahmedabad. The court had rejected the defence of the man that he had joined the HC proceeding virtually for the first time and therefore committed a mistake.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
Centre clears appointment of 2 judges in Bombay HC
New Delhi: The Centre on Friday cleared the appointment of two additional judges to the Bombay High Court following the recommendation made by the Supreme Court Collegium. "In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 224 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint S/Shri (i) Gautam Ashwin Ankhad and (ii) Mahendra Madhavrao Nerlikar, to be Additional Judges of the Bombay High Court for a period of two years, in that order of seniority, with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices," said a notification issued by the Union Ministry of Law and Justice. In September last year, the apex court Collegium, headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, recommended for elevation of advocates Ankhad and Nerlikar to the Bench of the Bombay High Court. In a statement, the SC Collegium said that advocate Ankhad has expertise in commercial, contract and arbitration cases. "The candidate's average net professional income of Rs 226.55 lakhs for the last five years is indicative of the fact that he has a substantial practice. He has 56 reported judgments delivered in cases in which he appeared/argued," added the statement. Advocate Nerlikar, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, has an experience of more than two decades in civil, criminal, constitutional, labour and service cases. "He has represented the Government of Maharashtra at the Aurangabad Bench in the capacity of Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor from 2013 to 2023 and has been representing as an Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor since November 2023," the SC Collegium had noted. As per the memorandum of procedure (MoP) governing the appointment of High Court judges, the proposal for the appointment should be initiated by the Chief Justice. The Governor, as advised by the Chief Minister, should forward his recommendation along with the entire set of papers to the Union Minister of Law & Justice as early as possible, but not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal from the Chief Justice of the High Court. The Union Minister of Law & Justice would consider the recommendations in the light of such other reports as may be available to the government in respect of the names under consideration. The complete material would then be forwarded to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for his advice. The CJI would, in consultation with the two seniormost Judges of the Supreme Court, form his opinion in regard to a person to be recommended for appointment to the High Court. After their consultations, the Chief Justice of India will, in the course of 4 weeks, send his recommendation to the Union Minister of Law & Justice. Further, as per the MoP, as soon as the warrant of appointment is signed by the President, the Secretary of the Department of Justice will inform the Chief Justice, and a copy of such communication will be sent to the Chief Minister. He will also announce the appointment and issue the necessary notification in the Gazette of India.
