On 15th July 2024, a division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Kamal Khata slams Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation the richest civic body in the country and cannot act arbitrarily towards its citizen for failing to provide either the rent or the alternative accommodation to project affected person.
This is the case where the petitioners premise had been demolished in November 2017 in the context of Tansa Pipeline and the petitioner was eligible for the rent or the benefits of Petitioner alternate accommodation, however the petitioner was deprived of any such benefit. The learned counsel of Mr. Godbole submitted that the petitioner was offered PAA at Mahul, but the petitioner refused to accept the same. It was also submitted that the BMC is in the process of acquiring alternate tenements, also BMC at present is not in position that when will the tenement will be available and will be provided to the Petitioner.
The learned counsel of petitioner submitted that in an order dated 23 September 2019 the relief was granted to the petitioner by offering accommodation at Mahul and Ambapada but the same was not accepted by the petitioner as there was serious air pollution and is unfit for human habitat. Also, it was admitted in the judgement that no person will be forced to accept the accommodation and those who has been allotted with the accommodation shall be provided with other alternative. Till alternate accommodation is made available, they should be paid Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) per month as transit rent with a security deposit of Rs.45,000/- It was also submitted that even without referring to the order BMC cannot claim that presently the corporation is not in position to compensate the petitioner or provide the rent in lieu of the said PAA, such contentions will involve the infringement of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The learned counsel of Petitioner admitted that PAPs who had accepted the allotment was given the option to shift and until then they have been provided with Rs15,000/- as rent with a security deposit of Rs.45,000/- Mr Godbole had not made any statement regarding this This is despite the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has declined to stay this Court’s order. The only distinction made between the Petitioner and others is they have accepted the allotment and the petitioner have not, NGT has also accepted the poor air condition which is unfit to live and considering the same it should not be the reason for discrimination.
The record shows that the Court had directed BMC on 23 September 2022 to file an affidavit within three weeks. Still, on 5th June 2023, no affidavit was filed and
the counsel for BMC reported no instructions. On 5th June 2023, Court once again requested the Municipal commissioner to impart proper instructions and to file a proper reply in this matter but till date no instruction has been filed. The richest civic body i.e. BMC can not act arbitrarily towards its citizen and ignore the plight of Petitioner and for the ad-interim relief court directed BMC to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month to the Petitioner. The first such payment should be made on or before 12th July 2024 as ad-interim relief.
CASE NAME- MOHAMMED JAVED SHAIKH Vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI.
NAME: SAFA HUSSAIN, COURSE: B.A.LL.B. (Hons), COLLEGE: JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA, NEW DELHI, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments