HC raps BMC over “shifting stands” on SoBo building’s structural status

The dispute centres around the Mehta Mahal Commercial Cooperative Premises Society, a 13-storey commercial building in Charni Road, which the BMC had categorised as ‘C2B’, meaning repairs were required but evicting the building’s residents was not necessary

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Monday strongly criticised the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for repeatedly changing its stance on the structural condition of a South Mumbai building near the Opera House. The court directed the civic body to explain its position, review the building’s status thoroughly, and take a stand that is justified by official records.

The Bombay High Court on Monday strongly criticised the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for repeatedly changing its stance on the structural condition of a South Mumbai building near the Opera House. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The dispute centres around the Mehta Mahal Commercial Cooperative Premises Society, a 13-storey commercial building in Charni Road. A technical advisory committee (TAC) set up by the BMC in 2021 conducted a structural audit of the building and categorised it as ‘C2B’, meaning repairs were required but evicting the building’s residents was not necessary. Acting on this report, the BMC directed the society to urgently carry out the repairs.

However, since Mehta Mahal is located in a densely populated area of South Mumbai and houses several offices and commercial establishments, concerns about the building’s safety became a subject of litigation among the owners, occupants and the civic body.

In 2023, Drishti Hospitality Company, one of the building’s owners, approached the high court, claiming the building was in a dangerous condition and needed to be demolished. It sought a direction for a fresh structural audit and a renewed reference to the TAC.

Following this, the court in September 2023 observed, “It is difficult to see how a repair permission granted by the BMC on the basis of a TAC report can now be scuttled or short-circuited by producing yet another report and demanding a fresh reference to the TAC”. By 2024, the society informed the court that 70% of the repair work had already been completed, and told the court that the building’s demolition was unnecessary.

Despite this, in April 2024, the BMC classified the building as ‘C1’, a category reserved for structures requiring evacuation and demolition, and listed the building on its website. The legal back and forth continued as Drishti Hospitality subsequently filed a petition in the Supreme Court claiming that the civic body had failed to inform the high court about the new ‘C1’ classification. While disposing of the petition in May this year, the Supreme Court directed the high court to sort out the matter soon.

On Monday, a division bench of justices Ravindra Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe noted that the civic body had initially relied on the TAC report to categorise the building as ‘C2B’, but later classified it as a ‘C1’ structure requiring eviction and demolition.

Following this, the BMC’s assistant commissioner filed an affidavit stating that the ‘C1’ listing was a result of miscommunication between departments. He informed the court that the building had now been removed from the C1 list and classified as C2 (needing major repairs).

Taking serious note of the civic body’s “shifting stands”, the court directed the BMC to “carefully go through the entire file of the property and take a stand in such a manner as the records may justify”. It also said the civic body must clarify its stand on the statements made before the Lok Ayukta, a state anti-corruption authority, and address the TAC’s approach to the matter.

“If the municipal commissioner deems it appropriate, he may also call for an explanation from the TAC for adopting such a stand and the concerned officers who may have taken shifting stands”, the court concluded, while adjourning the matter for further hearing on January 14.