Bombay High Court Slaps ₹2 Lakh Cost On BMC For Razing Structure Used As Temporary Shelter For Cancer Patients

The Bombay High Court recently imposed Rs 2 lakh costs on the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) for high-handedly demolishing a structure which was used to provide temporary shelter and food for the cancer patients taking treatment in the city's Tata Memorial Hospital.

Single-judge Justice Gauri Godse while imposing costs of Rs 2 lakh, observed that the officers acted 'insensitively and arbitrarily' and also did not follow the principles of natural justice or abide by the 'fundamental duties' prescribed under Article 51-A of the Constitution of India and also the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act.

"In the absence of any due process, the corporation's officers high-handedly, arbitrarily and insensitively demolished the plaintiff's structure. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed with costs. Considering the gravity of the illegal action taken by the corporation, the cost in favour of the plaintiff can be quantified at Rs. 2,00,000/- which shall be paid by the corporation. The corporation would be at liberty to recover the amount of costs from the erring officers," Justice Godse said in the order passed on April 4.

The judge noted that the instant case was an "absolutely unfortunate" case where the plaintiff's (M/s. Mehta & Co.) structure was high-handedly and illegally demolished by the officers of the MCGM under the garb of implementation of the redevelopment scheme under Regulation 33(9) of Development Control and Promotion Regulation 2034 (DCPR 2034). The plaintiff was occupying the demolished structure for the purpose of providing charitable services of food and shelter to the poor and needy cancer patients receiving treatment for cancer from the Tata Memorial Hospital. 

"The peculiar facts of the case clearly show that corporation's officers have shown a complete lack of sensitivity while proceeding with the demolition of the structure which the plaintiff used for providing food and shelter to the cancer patients undergoing treatment in Tata Memorial Hospital. In a city like Mumbai, it is very difficult to get temporary shelter. Thus, I have no doubt in holding that the action of demolition has not only deprived the plaintiff of his rights but also deprived the cancer patients of their right to temporary shelter at the time of taking treatment," the judge underscored. 

The judge said the 'plain denial' in the reply of the BMC would not be sufficient to disbelieve the plaintiff's contention in the absence of any material on record that the plaintiff is not carrying out such noble charitable activity.

Even otherwise, the plaintiff is high-handedly deprived of using his structure, which is held eligible for permanent rehab in the redevelopment project, the judge observed. 

Referring to Article 51-A of the Constitution of India, Justice Godse said, "It is a fundamental duty of every citizen to follow and abide by the laws. The corporation's officers are bound by the provisions of the MMC Act. They are under obligation to follow the process of law in its true spirit. The propriety of the law and the peculiar facts of this case demand justice by granting relief as prayed by the plaintiff."

The bench held that the instant case is indeed a "rare and exceptional case" where the grant of mandatory injunction must be issued in favour of the plaintiff. Not granting an injunction, the judge held, would amount to putting a premium on the high-handedness and arbitrary action of the corporation's officers.

"In the present case, the trial court has ignored the well-settled principles of law for granting mandatory injunction. Not exercising the discretion to grant relief of injunction in such gross facts would amount to refusing the relief on unreasonable grounds. I have no manner of doubt that the corporation's officers have acted high-handedly and arbitrarily for the reasons best known to them. Unholy haste shown on behalf of the corporation officers to demolish the structure without any intimation, and on the day when the plaintiff was to pray for interim relief before the court after notice to the corporation, smacks of mala fides and arbitrariness," the judge said while imposing costs of Rs 2 lakhs on the MCGM.

Appearance: 

Advocates Kunal Bhanage, Priyanka Acharya and Akshay Pawar appeared for the Plaintiff.

Advocates Chaitnya Chavan, Amol Diwte, Om Suryavanshi and Komal Punjabi represented the BMC.

Case Title: M/s. Mehta & Co. vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Appeal From Order 638 of 2024)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 141

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment