HC allows partial demolition of Mercedes Benz workshop

The court directed the civic body to demolish the illegal portion of the workshop but stayed the demolition for two weeks to allow the petitioners to approach the apex court

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has disposed of a petition challenging a demolition notice issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to the owners of a Mercedes Benz workshop in Shivsagar Estates in Worli. The court directed the civic body to demolish the illegal portion of the workshop but stayed the demolition for two weeks to allow the petitioners to approach the apex court.

(Shutterstock)

According to the petition, Satish Chand Anand, 83, and Sudeep Satish Anand, 49, are partners in a firm called Modern Paint and Auto Corporation, which operates a workshop for Mercedes Benz cars on Dr Annie Besant Road. The structure housing the workshop was surveyed by the BMC on April 1, 1962, when the so-called illegal extension was allowed to remain as a “tolerated structure”.

But on January 9, 2025, the BMC issued a notice to Modern Paint and Auto Corporation, alleging that it had carried out unauthorised construction, including building a mezzanine floor, at its auto repair workshop. The alterations were done without obtaining prior permission or sanction from the BMC, the notice stated. Subsequently, on February 21, 2025, the BMC directed the structure to be demolished within 15 days.

The petitioners responded to the BMC’s notice on January 13, followed by a comprehensive response on January 17. But they were not given an opportunity for a personal hearing, neither was any response received from concerned authorities.

Senior advocate Navroz H Seervai, representing the petitioners, contended that the notice was jurisdictionally defective and motivated by an ulterior motive. The petitioners had not altered the structure substantially except carrying out tenantable repairs necessary to maintain the premises in line with requirements for operating a Mercedes Benz workshop.

“The notice was served on the petitioners for the first time after over 65 years since the structure was constructed,” he said.

Senior counsel GS Godbole, representing the BMC, submitted that the authorities had duly considered all documents submitted by the petitioners but found them insufficient to justify the unauthorised alterations.

The division bench of justices AS Gadkari and Kamal Khata held that the construction of a mezzanine could not be reasonably classified as tenantable repair. There was nothing inherently wrong with improving the facade of an old structure, but such improvements could not be used as pretext to alter the core structure in a manner that transformed its fundamental character, the court clarified.

The division bench held that courts could not extend protection to any portion of unauthorised construction under the pretext of it being a part of a “tolerated structure”. It directed the BMC to carry the demolition but restricted the process only to the unauthorised structure/s or extension/s. “It should not affect the original structure or any legitimate tenantable/ permissible repairs,” the court said.

The court also acknowledged that a significant number of citizens avoided approaching the BMC for permissions and asked if the procedures were excessively lengthy or officers were being uncooperative. The BMC lacks justification when it selectively targets encroachments by certain sections of society while turning a blind eye to other encroachments.

“It is regrettable that only a limited number of illegal constructions are brought to the notice of courts, and consequently, only those are acted upon,” the bench said.