India's “Richest” Corporation Cannot Act Arbitrarily: Bombay HC Slams BMC For Failure To Provide Rent/Alternative Accommodation To Displaced

The richest civic body in the country cannot act arbitrarily towards its citizens, the Bombay High Court recently said while pulling up the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for failing to provide either rent or an alternate accommodation to a project affected person (PAP).

A division bench of Justices Mahesh Sonak and Kamal Khata noted that the house of the petitioner before it was demolished in November 2017 and since then he is neither being paid any rent not is he given an alternate accommodation. And instead, the BMC has been compelling the petitioner to live at Mahul village in Mumbai, a region already declared "unfit for human habitation" by the High Court in 2019, owing to the air pollution there.

The petitioner now approached the bench seeking either rent or an alternate accommodation. The petitioner specifically refused to shift in Mahul village, as offered by the BMC.

In its defense, the BMC contended that it is yet to acquire alternate accommodation and also expressed reluctance to pay the monthly rent of Rs 15,000 as ordered by the High Court in 2019.

Taking note of the same, the bench slammed the civic body for its approach in the matter.

"The BMC, after having demolished the Petitioner's house in November 2017 and adjudged the Petitioner eligible to receive the permanent alternate accommodation, cannot treat this matter so casually. The BMC is unable to say when it would allot permanent alternate accommodation and, at the same time, is resisting payment of compensation or rent in lieu of accommodation. The BMC, which is the richest municipal corporation in the Country, cannot act arbitrarily and completely ignore the plight of the petitioner whose house they demolished in November 2017," the bench observed.

Considering the plight of the petitioner, the bench ordered the BMC to file an affidavit in reply to the petition. A further order is issued to pay an interim rent of Rs 10,000 to the petitioner.

Further, the bench said that the BMC cannot claim that it is presently not in a position to offer a permanent alternate accommodation and that it will not pay any rent or compensation in lieu of the said PAA.

"At least, prima facie, such contention will involve infringement of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India," the bench held.

With these observations the bench adjourned the hearing till July 19 for the BMC to spell what steps it has taken for acquiring alternate accommodation for handing over the same to thousands PAPs.

Case Details: Mohammed Javed Shaikh vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (WP/607/2023)

Advocates Nitesh Acharya and Akash Bhogil appeared for the Petitioner.

Senior Advocate Girish Godbole along with Advocates RM Hazare and Sunil Sonawane represented the BMC.

Additional Government Pleader Vaishali Choudhari represented the State.

Click Here To Read/Download Order