Highly Arbitrary Action: Bombay High Court Imposes ₹2L Cost On Municipal Corporation For Demolishing Temporary Structure Providing Food & Shelter To Cancer Patients
The Bombay High Court said that the Municipal Corporation’s officers have acted high-handedly and arbitrarily for the reasons best known to them.
The Bombay High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs on the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for demolition of a temporary structure used for providing food and shelter to the cancer patients.
The Court was deciding an Appeal which was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage pursuant to an Order passed in February this year.
A Single Bench of Justice Gauri Godse observed, “… I am convinced that the action of demolition in this case is highly arbitrary and malafide, as no due process has been followed. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to restoration of the status quo ante. However, the fact that the grant of mandatory injunction to reconstruct is likely to affect the redevelopment process where the rights of 208 occupants are also involved cannot be ignored.”
The Bench said that the Corporation’s officers have acted high-handedly and arbitrarily for the reasons best known to them.
Advocate Kunal Bhanage represented the Appellant while Advocate Chaitnya Chavan represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant’s structure was demolished by the officers of Municipal Corporation under the garb of implementation of the redevelopment scheme under Regulation 33(9) of Development Control and Promotion Regulation 2034 (DCPR). The Appellant was occupying the demolished structure for the purpose of providing charitable services of food and shelter to the poor and needy cancer patients receiving treatment for cancer from the Tata Memorial Hospital. The structure, which was demolished, was situated on a municipal plot being the subject matter of the redevelopment scheme, which was situated adjacent to the said Hospital. Since the structure was held eligible for permanent rehabilitation under the scheme, a submission was made on the very first day of the hearing that the Corporation may consider the Appellant’s entitlement under the redevelopment scheme for rehabilitation.
However, the counsel for the Corporation did not receive any positive instructions on the suggestion made on behalf of the Appellant. The only reason for the lack of instructions for considering the rehabilitation of the Appellant was that the scheme for redevelopment has already been floated; hence, the Corporation would not be able to rehabilitate the Appellant. Hence, the Appeal was filed to challenge the refusal of the Appellant’s prayers in the notice of motion, mainly the prayer for the reconstruction of the structure, which the Corporation’s officers demolished without any notice of demolition.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above regard, noted, “… facts of the case clearly show that the corporation's officers have shown a complete lack of sensitivity while proceeding with the demolition of the structure which the plaintiff used for providing food and shelter to the cancer patients undergoing treatment in Tata Memorial Hospital. In a city like Mumbai, it is very difficult to get temporary shelter.”
The Court held that the action of demolition has not only deprived the Appellant of his rights but also deprived the cancer patients of their right to temporary shelter at the time of taking treatment.
“Under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India, it is a fundamental duty of every citizen to follow and abide by the laws. The corporation's officers are bound by the provisions of the MMC Act. They are under obligation to follow the process of law in its true spirit. The propriety of the law and the peculiar facts of this case demand justice by granting relief as prayed by the plaintiff”, it further said.
The Court said that this is a rare and exceptional case where the grant of mandatory injunction must be issued in favour of the Plaintiff (Appellant) and not granting an injunction would amount to putting a premium on the high-handedness and arbitrary action of the Corporation's officers.
“In the present case, the trial court has ignored the well-settled principles of law for granting mandatory injunction. Not exercising the discretion to grant relief of injunction in such gross facts would amount to refusing the relief on unreasonable grounds. Thus, the view taken by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court is palpably incorrect and untenable”, it added.
The Court remarked that unholy haste shown on behalf of the Corporation officers to demolish the structure without any intimation, and on the day when the Appellant was to pray for interim relief before the Court after notice to the Corporation, smacks of malafides and arbitrariness.
“… there is no doubt that there is an irreparable loss to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted. In view of the reasons recorded, it is also clear that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the impugned order requires interference by this court”, it also observed.
The Court was of the view that to balance the equities, the reliefs prayed by the Appellant can be modified by directing the Corporation to provide a temporary alternate accommodation equivalent to the area that was occupied by the Appellant.
“The noble activities carried out by the plaintiff to provide food and shelter to cancer patients undergoing treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital are important factors to be considered when providing temporary alternate accommodation. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to temporary alternate accommodation in the equivalent area in the same vicinity”, it held.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, imposed a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs on the Corporation, and directed it to provide temporary alternate accommodation to the Appellant.
Cause Title- M/s. Mehta & Co. v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:16300)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Kunal Bhanage, Priyanka Acharya, and Akshay Pawar.
Respondents: Advocates Chaitnya Chavan, Amol Diwte, Om Suryavanshi, and Komal Punjabi.
