Photo pass not a licence to put up illegal extension: HC

MUMBAI: A photo pass issued to slum dwellers eligible for rehabilitation cannot be used as a shield to protect unauthorised extensions or additions, the Bombay high court said, while refusing to grant protection to an additional construction in a restaurant in Mulund West

MUMBAI: A photo pass issued to slum dwellers eligible for rehabilitation cannot be used as a shield to protect unauthorised extensions or additions, the Bombay high court said, while refusing to grant protection to an additional construction in a restaurant in Mulund West.

HT Image

“A photo pass cannot be accepted to be a carta blanca or a blanket licence to put up unauthorised, illegal constructions,” a single judge bench of justice Girish Kulkarni said on Friday, while rejecting an appeal filed by the restaurant owner, Mujibur Chaudhary.

“It is certainly within the jurisdiction and powers of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to take action against the structure, if any structure is put up illegally. If unauthorised and uncontrolled illegal constructions are permitted in slums, the ghastly consequences are not too far to be seen,” the bench added.

Chaudhary had moved high court after the city civil court on January 13, 2023, rejected his plea for an interim order, restraining the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) from going ahead with demolition of the additional construction in his restaurant. The BMC had on December 23, 2022, issued an order asking the restaurant owner to remove the additional construction of a mezzanine/first floor in his restaurant in 15 days.

He had claimed that the structure was authorised and he had obtained all requisite licences and no objection certificates (NOCs) to run the restaurant, and since part of the original structure was removed for road widening, he was entitled to use the lost area vertically.

He contended that the area was a notified slum and he had received a ‘patch holder card’—popularly known as photo pass issued to those eligible to get permanent alternate accommodation on redevelopment of the slum—and therefore the civic body could not have issued him the demolition notice.

The BMC, on the other hand, pointed out that Chaudhary had constructed the mezzanine floor without obtaining permission from and in fact the original structure itself was illegal. Besides, the civic body also pointed out that height of 10 feet is allowed for a commercial structure in a notified slum, whereas the restaurant was 22-feet-high, including the mezzanine floor.

Rejecting the restaurant owner’s contentions, justice Kulkarni said the photo pass had several anomalies—for example it was issued for a ‘plastic scrap shop’ and not for a restaurant.

“Even assuming that the photo pass is issued in favour of the appellant (Chaudhari), it would not assist him to save the unauthorised structure as objected by the civic body, as there is no provision in law or under any government policy that a person holding a photo pass can undertake unauthorised construction and claim protection,” the court said.

The bench clarified that a photo pass would primarily be relevant to make claim for a permanent alternate accommodation as and when the slum area goes for redevelopment, and if at all, for the protection of the basic dwelling unit from being demolished, if it is a tolerated structure as per the slum policy of the state government.