Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, residents of SmitDeep Apartment in Mumbai, challenged a notice dated 28 September 2015 issued under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, by the Assistant Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The notice declared the building to be in a ruinous condition and likely to fall, directing the occupants to vacate and shift to alternative accommodation to facilitate demolition. The petitioners contended that the notice was issued without any prior hearing, without proper inspection, and without application of mind. They had made representations to the corporation but received no response. The court examined the provisions of Section 354, which empowers the Commissioner to require the owner or occupier to secure or demolish a dangerous structure. The court noted that the power under Section 354 is quasi-judicial and must be exercised after due inquiry and in compliance with principles of natural justice. The notice was found to be vague, not specifying which part of the building was dangerous or the basis for the conclusion. The court also observed that the corporation had not considered the petitioners' objections and had not provided any alternative accommodation despite the notice requiring vacation. The court held that the notice was unsustainable and quashed it. However, it granted liberty to the corporation to initiate fresh proceedings after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and conducting a proper inspection. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Demolition Notice - Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Natural Justice - The court held that a notice under Section 354 directing demolition of a building as dangerous must be preceded by a proper inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the affected persons. The notice in question was issued without any prior notice or hearing, and the municipal authority did not apply its mind to the condition of the building. The court quashed the notice and directed the authority to conduct a fresh inquiry after hearing the petitioners. (Paras 1-29) B) Municipal Law - Dangerous Structure - Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - Application of Mind - The court observed that the notice was vague and did not specify the exact nature of the danger or the portion of the building considered dangerous. The authority failed to consider the petitioners' representation and did not provide any reasons for rejecting it. The court held that such a mechanical exercise of power is unsustainable. (Paras 10-20) C) Municipal Law - Alternative Accommodation - Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 - The notice required the occupants to vacate and shift to alternative accommodation, but no such accommodation was provided or offered. The court noted that the authority cannot compel demolition without ensuring that the occupants have a safe place to go. (Paras 15-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, directing demolition of a building as dangerous, can be sustained when it was issued without affording the occupants a prior hearing and without proper application of mind by the municipal authority.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the notice dated 28 September 2015 under Section 354 of the MMC Act, and granted liberty to the municipal corporation to initiate fresh proceedings after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and conducting a proper inspection. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- prior hearing
- Section 354 MMC Act
- demolition notice
- dangerous structure
- application of mind
- alternative accommodation
