Skip to main content

Civic body can't disconnect water, power to building before evacuation: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a civic body has no right to disconnect water and electric supply to a dilapidated building before the process of evacuation begins.

"Such action can only be taken at the time of evacuation and not in advance," Justice Anoop Mohata said on December 21 while hearing a petition filed by Manjul Darshan Building Tenants Welfare Association in suburban Borivali.

The petitioner had challenged the action of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to disconnect water and electricity to the building in order to evacuate the occupants as it was in a dilapidated condition.

The occupants/tenants unless evicted in accordance with law, are entitled to basic amenities such as water and electricity uninterruptedly. This in no way obstructs and/or can be stated to be a hurdle in way of the corporation's power and/or local authorities' power to take action of evacuation after due notice, said the judge.

"The advance disconnection in such fashion, in my view, is totally unjust, unacceptable and shows inhuman approach of the local bodies, one who instead of providing the amenities to the citizens, merely because eviction notices are issued and they have a power to take such necessary steps, by this method are compelling the occupants to vacate the premises", the judge observed.

This is nothing but taking away the rights of the citizen/occupants to use the necessary amenities like water and electricity, which is otherwise available and provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the judge said.

"Water and electricity are essential part of life. Such disconnection to hasten up the evacuation process in my view, is impermissible," the judge ruled.

The court directed the municipal corporation to connect the water supply forthwith. BMC was also restrained from disconnecting electricity without due and proper notice.

However, the court made it clear that the continuation of the stay of the occupants/tenants in such dilapidated building, inspite of the notices by the corporation, will be at their risk and the consequences. The corporation officers will not be responsible, in case of any mishap.

Article referred: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-25/news/45561626_1_brihanmumbai-municipal-corporation-evacuation-occupants

Comments

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...