'Can't Allow Weaponization Of Writ Jurisdiction In Private Dispute': Bombay HC Junks Padma Shri Awardee's Plea Alleging Illegal Repairs

The Bombay High Court dismissed a petition by Padma Shri awardee Mustansir Barma alleging illegal repairs by the owner of ground floor of a building in Colaba observing that the court cannot permit writ jurisdiction to be “weaponized” by delving into disputed questions of fact.

A division bench of Justice GS Patel and Justice Kamal Khata deemed the issue a private dispute and observed –

“If the dispute from this individual Petitioner (who repeatedly asserts that he has been conferred a Padma Shri, as if this is of the slightest consequence to his status as a litigant like any other before us) is that the works are not tenantable repairs, then he should have the courage and take the trouble to file a suit, pay court fees and step into the witness box. Simply put, we are not prepared to accept his word for it (and most certainly not merely because he has a Padma Shri).”

Barma asserted that the Lambason Hotel and Restaurant Services, the occupant of the ground-floor of the building, had conducted illegal work, including the removal of a mezzanine and lowering the ground floor below the plinth level.

He alleged that Lambason Hotel and Restaurant Services had damaged the building's structural stability during renovations for a high-end coffee shop and eatery behind Taj Mahal Hotel. He sought the court's intervention to direct the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to issue a stop-work notice and conduct a survey.

The court questioned Barma's standing and why the owner of the building Sunny House Co-Operative Housing Society did not file the petition if there is damage to the building. The court noted that Lambason Hotel and Restaurant Services is not an outsider but the owner of premises on the ground floor and a member of the society.

The court highlighted the nature of the dispute as pertaining to the property of the society and involving member-to-member or society-to-member issues, and pointed out that there is no reason why an alternative remedy was not availed. The court refused to delve into factual disputes, emphasizing that writ jurisdiction is not meant for private disputes and factual matters.

Lambason Hotel and Restaurant Services presented a series of documents, including a Deed of Assignment dating back to 2003, a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from MCGM, and other licenses. The petitioner challenged the legitimacy of a fire safety compliance certificate. The court stated that it would not enter a factual dispute regarding the permissions granted.

The owner-society pointed out a structural audit report categorising the building in the C2-B category and stating that all repair works for the building should be done in consultation with an empanelled structural consultant and engineer. The court, however, emphasized that structural repairs should not be confused with permissions granted for interior repairs and renovations. “We do not think that it is open to this society to dictate what permissions the MCGM should or should not grant. The MCGM itself has found no cause to move against the 4th Respondent”, the court added.

The petitioner argued that the construction permission, initially for 45 days, expired months ago. The court dismissed this claim as unfounded, highlighting a pattern where one allegation is substituted by another.

“First, it is said that the works are unauthorised. Then, when permissions are shown, it is said that the works are damaging the entire building. When the sheer lack of logic is pointed out, and it is seen that this allegation is the merest speculation, it is argued that whatever permissions there may have been, these have expired — as if everybody always completes renovations on schedule — without the slightest attempt made to show that the works are beyond the permissions granted”, the court stated.

The court criticized the conduct of the petitioner stating that it led to an undue consumption of judicial time. The court concluded that the petition lacks bona fides and appears to be an attempt to involve the court in private disputes.

The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that neither the petitioner nor the society was allowed to obstruct access by Lambason Hotel and Restaurant Services, its customers, clients, staff, or workmen to its premises.

Advocates Vishal Kanade and Rutuparn Deo i/b Aditya Lele represented the Petitioner.

Advocate SA Bhalwal, i/b Vyas & Bhalwal represented the Bombay Port Trust.

Advocates Mayur Khandeparkar, Chaitanya Nikte, Esha Malik, Hitanshu Jain and Vikramjeet Garewal represented Lambason Hotel and Restaurant Services.

Advocate Kunal Waghmare represented MCGM.

Case no. – Writ Petition (L) No. 31084 of 2023

Case Title – Mustansir Barma v. Executive Engineer A ward & Ors.