Can’t stop at issuing notices; dangerous buildings must be razed: HC

The Bombay high court has ruled that municipal corporations have the power to demolish dangerous buildings and cannot stop issuing notices to save lives. The ruling was made in response to a petition filed by a deputy engineer who was charged with causing death by negligence after a dilapidated building collapsed, resulting in five deaths. The court rejected the engineer's plea and stated that it would be determined at trial whether the municipal corporation's inaction constituted negligence.

MUMBAI: In an important ruling, the Bombay high court (HC) has held that municipal corporations have ample powers to demolish dilapidated buildings which are categorised as dangerous and civic officials cannot just stop issuing notices when the structures are required to be pulled down to save human lives.

HT Image

The division bench of justice Vinay Joshi and justice MW Chandwani was hearing a petition filed by Suhas Chavan, a deputy engineer employed with the Amravati Municipal Corporation, for quashing the FIR registered against him under section 304-A (for causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code as five people lost their lives as a dilapidated building in the area within his jurisdiction collapsed.

The municipal corporation had in July 2019 declared the 100-year-old building known as Rajendra Lodge a dangerously dilapidated structure and issued eviction notices to its owner and occupants. After receiving the notices, the owner pulled down the two upper floors, but occupants of the ground floor continued to run their commercial activities. On October 31, the remaining structure collapsed, resulting in the loss of five lives.

Last year he approached the high court for quashing the criminal proceedings against him contending that he had taken all possible steps to get the building vacated and demolished. His counsel submitted that the municipal authorities issued three eviction notices to the owner and occupants of the building, requested MSEDCL to disconnect the electricity supply to the building and also sought assistance from the police to get the building vacated, and therefore the civic engineer could not be fastened with criminal liability.

The argument, however, failed to impress upon the court. The hench rejected the deputy engineer’s plea after noticing that he had, as an authorised officer, merely issued eviction notices to the owner and occupants of the building even after the civic body in July 2019 declared the building dangerously dilapidated.

“The MMC (Maharashtra Municipal Corporations) Act authorises the Corporation to demolish the structure in certain exigencies. However, apparently, for three years, the Corporations only issued notices but did nothing more than that,” said the bench.

“Since inception, from the first notice dated 31.07.2019, the Corporation was aware that the building was in dilapidated condition and on the verge of collapse, which would be dangerous for the occupants and passersby. Despite categorising the building in C-1 category (dangerously dilapidated) for the next three years the building was not demolished for one or the other reasons,” the bench added.

“In criminal law, an omission constitutes ‘actus reus’ and gives rise to liability when the law imposes a duty to act, and the person is in breach of that duty,” said the bench, adding that it will have to be ascertained at trial whether this inaction attracted the charge of causing death by negligence or not, and therefore the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage.

“It is a matter of trial to establish as to why the corporation has slept over and allowed to exist a life risk on a public road for long three years,” the bench added.