Ensure No Hoarding Collapse Happens During Monsoons : Supreme Court To Mumbai Authorities; Refers To Ghatkopar Tragedy

In a case filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) regarding the applicability of certain provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act to hoardings on Railways' land, the Supreme Court today directed authorities in Mumbai to ensure that no untoward incident relating to hoardings takes place in the city considering that monsoon season has arrived. 

The vacation bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and PB Varale listed the matter next week to enable the respondents to file a response.

Dictating the order, Justice Kumar said, "In the meanwhile, all parties concerned, including the Railways, ensure that no untoward incident happens in connection with any hoardings, be it on Railway land or on [...]. So whoever is in charge of whichever land, please see that nothing happens atleast within a week, now that the monsoons have arrived".

Briefly put, the case pertains to a batch of writ petitions filed before the Bombay High Court by the Union of India (Railways) against MCGM and others, praying for an order restraining municipal authorities from applying Section 328 and 328A (or any other provisions) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, in respect of hoardings belonging to Railways.

The Railways further sought a declaration from the High Court that its activities on railway properties, including commercial, were not subject to the jurisdiction of Municipal Authorities.

Allowing the writ petitions, the High Court held that Sections 328 and 328A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act "would not be applicable to the hoardings erected by Railways on the railway" as defined in Section 2(31) read with Section 197 of the Railways Act, 1989.

The Court further held that the Railway Administration would not be liable to pay any tax to MCGM in respect of any advertisement made on any part of Railways, unless a notification to that effect is issued by the Central Government under Section 185 of the Railways Act.

Be that as it may, the Railway Authorities were directed to formulate a policy for regulating the hoardings on railway properties, so as to ensure that hoardings are not erected in haphazard manner, that there is no overcrowding of hoardings and the safety of citizens is not endangered.  

Aggrieved by this order, MCGM approached the Supreme Court. Notice was issued in the case on May 1, 2018. On May 7, 2023, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PB Varale granted leave to appeal.

During today's hearing, Justice Varale referred to the collapse of a 250-tonne illegal hoarding in Ghatkopar, Mumbai on top of a petrol pump, following a dust storm and heavy rains in the city on May 13, 2024.

Reportedly, the pillar which supported the Ghatkopar hoarding had a weak foundation and the size of the hoarding was 120×120 sq feet (instead of the permitted size 40×40 sq ft). About 17 people lost their lives in the incident, while several others were injured. A case under Sections 304/337/338/34 of the IPC was registered by Mumbai Police against Bhavesh Bhide (owner of the hoarding) and others.

The judge commented that as per newspaper reports, the accused was not initially available but was apprehended later, and found to have antecedents relating to the erection of illegal hoardings/structures.

When Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee stressed that the Ghatkopar issue was not before the court, Justice Varale insisted that the High Court's observations regarding the formulation of a policy by Railways were of significance.

On the bench enquiring if the policy referred to in the High Court order had been framed, the ASG replied in the affirmative. "Then how did this happen?", Justice Varale questioned. In response, the ASG said that the illegal hoarding that collapsed in Ghatkopar was not on railway land.

This contention was countered by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for MCGM, who submitted that the Corporation was discharging functions not only under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, but also the Disaster Management Act, which has an overriding effect on other laws. He informed that the Corporation identified 29 illegal hoardings on railway land and put the same to the notice of Railways; out of the same, 13-14 were removed by Railways but the rest were not, on the basis that the issue was pending before the Supreme Court and Corporation had no jurisdiction to regulate Railways' affairs.

It was Rohatgi's contention that the hoardings have to be of a particular, permissible size and subject to a structural stability certificate.

Hearing the senior counsel's submissions, ASG Banerjee countered that as per Railways' policy, hoardings' size is not of relevance - it is rather a matter of structural stability. "Can it then go onto any size?", queried Justice Kumar.

The ASG responded: "I am saying that it can be of any size, provided you have structural stability certificate. They don't want to take the responsibility that they did not check the structural stability on which they put up. We get stability of our hoardings verified by IIT and respected engineering colleges...we are very clear on who we allow. We go through a regular process. This whole thing about blaming it on height is to divert the entire discussion. As if the problem was with the height. No way they verified the stability".

When the bench specifically put to the ASG as to whether there have been no incidents on Railway land, he replied that there had been none. He further alleged that by bringing in the Disaster Management Act, the Corporation was trying to extend its powers.

Deeming a clarification necessary on whether the Ghatkopar incident took place on railway land, the bench permitted respondents to file an affidavit and listed the matter for next Friday.

Case Title: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI V. JAGMOHAN CHANDRABHAN GUPTA(DEAD) THROUGH LRS., C.A. No. 6367/2024