‘Does Maharashtra govt want to encourage law-abiders or lawbreakers?': Bombay HC orders demolition of illegal construction at Andheri
The Bombay High Court, while expressing displeasure over inaction by authorities against illegal construction in Andheri (East) despite several complaints made for the last four years, questioned whether the Maharashtra government wanted to continue to encourage the law-abiders or the lawbreakers.
A Bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Kamal R Khata on April 17 directed strict disciplinary action against responsible officers of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and said that it was an example of civic body's failure to prevent and remove unauthorised constructions.
The court also ordered to demolish the illegal construction at an open space next to Lotus Apartment and opposite Lok Bharti building at Marol, Andheri (East) within two weeks, based on a plea filed in 2023, by an individual, Asif Fazal Khan, who stated that a member of Manav Seva Dham Charitable Trust had noticed the illegal construction.
The Trust had filed a complaint before the BMC first in March 2021 and another in May 2022 to take action against the illegal activity. However, it failed to give any response or take action.
Advocate Mahesh Rajpopat who appeared for the petitioner submitted that the illegal structure was being visited by anti-social elements, causing trouble to occupants of adjoining residential premises.
The HC in April last year had directed the BMC to inspect the site and take appropriate action.
The court noted that BMC, in its affidavit regarding the erring officer, claimed that the staff of the municipal wards concerned were on other duties due to the Ganpati festival and subsequently during Assembly elections last year, which caused the officer 'to lose track of the matter'. The affidavit said that the error by the officer was inadvertent and not a willful non-compliance with the HC order.
The HC noted that illegal constructions on larger vacant lands 'develop into slums which consist of both dwelling and commercial units and on smaller ones into commercial establishments.
'Outstandingly, this case not only reveals but vindicates the common belief about the unholy nexus amongst all concerned,' the HC said
'We are exasperated by not only the inaction of the BMC and all the above officers but what exemplifies this case is the complete lack of courtesy to the citizen by a Public Authority, noncommunication, and stoic silence. A reading of the Petition itself evokes annoyance. What emotional trauma citizens go through patiently, is what we set aside for now – though a matter of great concern,' the HC remarked.
It observed, 'one needs to have the courage and wherewithal not only to take up these issues against the law-breakers, who in some cases may also be anti-social elements but to continue following up the same till it meets with its logical conclusion, against all odds.'
'Does the State want to continue to encourage the law abiders or the law breakers is a question that the State Government needs to answer. At this point, we find it otherwise,' the Bench pointed out.
The Bench said the state government 'must sensitise these thoroughly insensitive persons in charge of the public authorities.
It went on to note, 'They are the ones who are solely responsible for the mushrooming illegalities and utter lawlessness. A lax attitude of the State Government in this regard would only lead law-abiding citizens to draw an inference that persons abetting the lawbreakers/persons indulging in illegalities, enjoy the benefits of these illicit gains from these illegalities conducted by anti-social elements who care a tuppence for the law.'
The HC also directed the BMC Commissioner to take appropriate action against erring officers responsible for permitting the construction and continuance of illegal structures after holding enquiry against them.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Video proof, priest affidavit now must for marriage certs in UP
Ghaziabad: UP govt has announced significant reforms in its marriage registration policy, mandating video evidence of ceremonies and physical verification of priests. The new directives, issued on Friday following an Allahabad High Court order, said priests must submit notarised affidavits, appear as witnesses on behalf of couples at registration offices and possess a pen drive containing videos of the wedding. Marriage registrars would now accept applications from couples only if one of them is a permanent resident of that particular district. The govt move follows an HC order from May 12, seeking to address a rise in forged certificates and false documents linked to bogus marriages. The court was hearing a writ petition filed by a Greater Noida couple who claimed to have got married in Arya Samaj Mandir in June last year and secured a registration certificate in Ghaziabad. During the hearing, the court found that the certificate lacked the priest's name, the registered address of the Arya Samaj Mandir, and details of witnesses. The couple also did not appear before the local police, but sent a request seeking protection from their families from the post-office located on the HC premises. The HC ordered a probe into widespread irregularities in the state's marriage registration system, particularly in districts like Ghaziabad, Noida and Prayagraj. The scale of the problem became evident when the probe revealed that Ghaziabad alone recorded 29,022 marriages between Aug 2023 and Aug 2024 – nearly 10 times more than other key districts like Prayagraj (2,019), Gorakhpur (2,284), and Varanasi (2,711). More startlingly, smaller districts like Shrawasti and Chitrakoot registered only 51 and 112 marriages, respectively, during the same period. The investigations also revealed that couples from places like Ahmedabad claimed to have solemnised their marriages in Maharashtra, yet obtained registrations in Ghaziabad to secure court protection orders. In these cases, supporting documents such as Aadhaar and PAN cards often turned out to be forged or altered. Other fraudulent practices included certificates issued by non-existent societies, fictitious witnesses, and cases where minors were presented as adult brides. The HC also observed that the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017, offered limited safeguards. For instance, these rules did not require applicants to declare specific customs observed during the wedding, while the digital registration portal provided no means for marriage officers to reject suspicious requests or track those denied. Concerned about widespread exploitation of these gaps, the HC recommended amendments to the 2017 rules. Until then, the measures announced by the govt will stay. "Under the new directives, marriage registration applications will only be accepted from couples if any one present with them is a permanent resident of the district where they are applying. This applies to either the bride, groom, or their parents. Temporary accommodation documents, such as unregistered rent agreements, will no longer be considered valid proof of residence," said Pushpendra Kumar, assistant inspector-general (AIG, stamps), Ghaziabad. In cases where a couple register their marriage without parental consent, the priest who performs the ceremony must be physically present at the time of registration. "They need to submit affidavits with complete details and video evidence," Kumar said. The notification, signed by inspector-genera (stamps) Sameer Verma, allows marriage officials some flexibility if parents or adult family members from both sides are present. "If parents or adult family members of both parties are present and vouch for the marriage, the marriage registration officer may waive the video and priest affidavit requirements, provided they're satisfied with the marriage's authenticity," the notification read. Each registration performed under the new rules would have a special stamp, while the priest's affidavit and related documents would be subject to thorough verification. District offices would have to maintain a separate register containing credentials of the priest, such as their Aadhaar details, phone numbers, and photographs. "We applied the residency rule locally in Ghaziabad back in April in keeping with the high court's interim directions. The other rules will also be implemented with immediate effect," AIG Kumar said. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
If there was crime, a culpable act, why wasn't it punished, asks V-P Dhankhar
A more than three-decade-old judicial order has rendered the government of the day 'handicapped' and 'provides a virtually impregnable cover' to HC judges against whom an FIR cannot be lodged, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar Friday said. Dhankhar's remarks came on the Justice Yashwant Varma episode during an interaction with a delegation of the Punjab and Haryana HC Bar Association. 'The government of the day is handicapped. It can't register an FIR because there is a judicial order, which is more than three decades old. It provides a virtually impregnable cover. Unless permission is accorded by a functionary at the highest level in the judiciary, an FIR can't be registered… why was that permission not given? That was the minimum that could have been done at the earliest occasion,' Dhankhar said, as per an official statement issued after the interaction. The Centre has reached out to all political parties to build a consensus before bringing a motion of impeachment against Justice Varma during the monsoon session of the Parliament. Dhankhar, however, asked if bringing a motion to remove a judge, is the answer. 'If a crime was committed, a culpable act shaking the foundations of democracy, why wasn't it punished? We have lost more than three months, and the investigation has not even been initiated. Whenever you go to court, they ask why the FIR was delayed,' he said. In an apparent reference to the SC-appointed committee in the mater, he asked, 'Does the committee of judges have a constitutional sanction? Does it have statutory sanction? Can its report result in any outcome? Can the report, by itself, be actionable? The Constitution says mechanism to remove a judge can be initiated either in Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha… this committee cannot substitute for an FIR investigation'. Without naming Justice Varma, he said a 'very painful' incident happened mid-March in Delhi when 'there was a cash haul, obviously tainted, unaccounted, illegal and unexplained' at the residence of a sitting judge. The incident appeared in the public domain after 6-7 days, he said. '… We don't know if it was an isolated incident. Whenever such a cash haul is made, the system has to find out whose money was it. What was the money trail? Are big sharks (involved)? Did the money influence judicial work?'
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
‘Not in line with rationalisation': Interim stay on transfer of one govt school teacher by HC
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court granted an interim stay on the transfer order of a govt primary school teacher. The court directed the authorities to decide on the teacher's representation within seven days. This comes at a time when protests against the state govt's rationalisation policy are ongoing and several teachers have also moved HC against rationalisation orders, There will be a separate hearing for the other petitions. The petition was filed against the transfer order dated 2 June 2025, which moved the petitioner from Government Abhyas Primary School, Mahasamund, to Government Primary School, Fooljhar, in Bagbahara block. The petitioner's counsel argued that the transfer order was not in line with the rationalisation transfer policy and should therefore be set aside. The counsel also stated that the petitioner filed a representation with the competent authority, which was not yet considered. The court was urged to direct the authority to decide the representation within a specific timeframe. State counsel informed the court that the petitioner's representation would be considered and decided in accordance with the law within seven days. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Unglaublich: Der Rechner zeigt sofort den Wert Ihres Hauses an [schauen Sie sich das an] Hauswert Undo After hearing both sides, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma directed the competent authority to decide the petitioner's representation by 10 June 2025, if it was not already decided. Until then, the transfer order of 2 June 2025 will remain in abeyance. The writ petition was disposed of with this observation and direction to the authorities. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
