IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2689 OF 2014

Joyce Rath Nath & Anr

... Petitioners

V/s
Mr. Ravi Sawant & Ors.

Respondents

DRAFT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ABOVE

PETITION

The following paragraphs be added after paragraph No. 46.

47.

On 30th April 2014, the Honble Court was pleased to order

MCGM Respondents No 1, 2, 3 and 8 to take inspection of Flat No.6

of of Respondent No. 4 in the presence of the Petitioners. As a
consequence of the order of the Honble Court, the Petitioners have
got photographic evidence on 03 May 2014 (Pages 136 to 155 of
Writ Petition) which exposes the falsehood of the Affidavits of
MCGM Deponent, Satish Arjun Chavan dated 06.05.2014 and
Deponent (Respondent No 1) Ravindra Sawant dated 6.01.2015 and
their collusion with Respondent No 4, Kaushik Joshi to promote the
personal agenda to carry out additions and alterations with heavy
sledge hammers and chisels in his Flat No. 6 on the 2 nd floor of the
dilapidated building in the garb of tenantable repairs by the
impugned MCGM permission dated 22.04.2014.

48.

On 24.07.2013 parts of the building collapsed during heavy

rains. The disaster was attended to by the First Response Disaster

Control Team composed of the Fire Brigade and the Police. All the
Respondents are aware of and have full knowledge of the collapse.

49.

The First Response Disaster Control Team summoned the

Deponent, Ravindra Sawant (Respondent No 1 and the

Respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 (the Board of Administrators in charge of
Rath Mansion Society) to the disaster site on the said date and
directed them to reinforce and repair the structural damage on
priority under the supervision of a licensed structural Engineer
after a structural audit was carried out of the entire building.

50.

Thereafter no action whatsoever was taken by the

Deponent, Ravindra Sawant to ensure that Respondents 4, 5, 6, 7

& 9 carry out the structural audit and repairs of the building and
the collapsed parts.

51.

Initially MCGM issued notice dated 25.7.2013 (Exhibit

Gpage 79) to the Respondent No. 9, Deputy Registrar, to carry out

the repairs urgently, which was ignored. A further MCGM notice
dated 5.10.2013 (Exhibit J, page 84) was issued to Deputy Registrar
followed by another notice dated 28.1.2014 under Section 353 (B)
(Exhibit K page 85). Notice was again issued on 3.2.2014 to the Dy.
Registrar (Exhibit M page 91). The Petitioners also wrote to
Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 drawing their attention to the criminal
negligence of the Deputy Registrar and Administrators (Exhibit No.
L, pages 86-92).

52.

The Petitioners also complained to the Deputy Registrar and

also Respondent Nos. 9, 1 & 2 by letters both dated 25.03. 2014

(Exhibit M1 & N) when Administrators (Respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7)
granted permission to Respondent No. 4 to carry out civil works in

his flat without carrying out repairs or reinforcing the collapsed parts
of the building as directed by the several MCGM notices. MCGM
issued stop work notice dated 4.4.2014 to Respondent No. 4 (Exhibit
O, page 97) .

53.

Designated Officer Satish Arjun Chavan issued notice to the

Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 dated 28.4.2014 (Exhibit P page 98). The

Respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7 were directed to carry out structural audit
and stop the unauthorised work being carried out in Flat No. 6 by
Respondent No 4 immediately. The notices and directives of MCGM
were ignored by the Respondent No. 9, Dy. Registrar Co-operative
Societies, and also by the Administrators (Respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7).

54. The condition of the building is made further dangerous and

precarious because of the impugned permission dated 22.04.2014
granted by Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and also by Respondents 5, 6 and 7
to Respondent No. 4 to carry out large scale additions and alterations
in his Flat No. 6 under the guise of tenantable repairs which by no
stretch of the imagination can be justified under s/342 of the MMC
Act as falsely claimed by the Deponents. The heavy chiseling and
hammering employed to carry out the illegal alterations and additions
in the Flat no. 6 violently shook up the building and there is imminent
danger to the Societys leaking overhead water tank containing 22
metric tons of water crashing into the stairwell. Extensive
hammering has already resulted in structural damage causing deep
cracks in the RCC beams, columns and flooring of the Petitioners flats
above. Practically every day the Petitions experience falling pieces of
stones, rusted iron etc. The condition is severely bad and needs
urgent reconstruction / repairs of the structural part of the building.

55.

The worst and curious fact being that the stop work

notice was given by MCGM on 4.4.2014 (Exhibit O, page 97) to

Respondent No. 4 directing him not to carry out any work till
structural audit of the building was received since as per the
office observations the building required urgent structural
repairs. The MCGM designated officer had instructed the
Administrators (Respondent nos. 5 to 7) to stop the unauthorized
work going on in Respondent no 4s flat (Exhibit P, page 98).
Thereafter, on 21.04.2014 an Officer Senior to the Deponents i.e.,
the Ward Executive Engineer had declared the building as
dilapidated. (Exhibit )

56.

Yet the very next day 22.04.2014, Respondent No.1

Ravindra Sawant granted permission with lightening speed to

Respondent No. 4 to carry out tenantable repairs on the same day
the application was made by Respondent No 4. Despite Respondent
Nos 1 and 3 having witnessed during two site visits in April 2014, the
illegal and unauthorised work being carried out on 04.04.2014 and
correctly recorded in the stop work notice (Exhibit P, page 98).

57.

Further more, after filing the Affidavit dated 06.01.2015,

the Deponent Ravindra Sawant has sent a purported

Reminder 1 on 31st January 2015 to the Petitioners to carry
out structural repairs under section 353(B) by letter
fraudulently ante dated 04.09.2014 (addressed to Respondent
No.9) with the intention to fabricate grounds for dismissal of
the Writ Petition and to shift responsibility for carrying out
structural audit and repairs from the Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7
and 9 to the Petitioners. The Reminder 1 and the reply are
annexed to the Affidavit as Exhibit 1A, 1B & 1C. The
Administrators Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are custodians of

the Societys Sinking Fund and Building Repairs Fund for

which the Petitioners have also contributed. Money in these
funds are stashed away in fixed deposits for the society.

58.

However, the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 the members of

the Board of Administrators have been negligent in the worst

possible manner. Despite being aware of the position of the
building, they have almost refused with vengeance to look into
the safety aspect of the building and carry out their statutory
duties as Board of Administrators.

59.

Instead, Respondents 5, 6 and 7 have aggravated the

situation by not only granting instant permission to

Respondent No. 4 to carry out additional and alterations even
when they are not technically qualified, but they had hired an
unskilled laborer to wrap the terrace doors with metal sheets
thus making it difficult to close the terrace doors to keep out
rain water and water leaking from overhead tank seeping into
the staircase. No heed is paid by Respondents 5, 6, 7 to
dismantle the metal sheets which is evidence of their cussed
attitude to deliberately cause damage the Petitioners Flats
and the RCC structure of the building (Photo Exhibit

60.

).

MCGM notice dated 21.4.2014 (Exhibit R, page 100)

addresses only the Petitioners as owners of Flat nos. 7 & 8 to

carry out structural audit and repairs of the whole building.
MCGM has deliberately not issued such a notice to the other
eleven members of the Society as if it was only our
responsibility to structurally repair the building. This is very
strange, to say the least, as the repairs are needed to be carried
out urgently to the entire staircase, to the overhead water tank,

East side terrace and the beams and the columns which form
the common areas. Whatever is wrong is in the flat of the
Respondent no. 4 to whom notice under section 353(B) has not
been issued by MCGM even though stop work notice was
issued on 4.04.2014 and the Respondent No. 4 was
specifically directed not to carry out any work till the structural
audit of the building is received in MCGM office and status of
the structure is ascertained by the concerned licensed
Structural Engineer (Exhibit O, page 97).

61.

The has not brought any record to indicate that the

other flat owners, other than the Petitioners flats were ever
asked to carry out the structural audit reports. In his Affidavit,
the Respondent No. 1 has no compunction in advocating that
Respondent No. 4 cannot conduct the structural audit of the
entire building and bear the whole expenses, but he has no
scruples in asking the Petitioners to carry out structural audit
and repairs and bear the whole expenses. This shows the
collusion of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 4.

62.

The letter dated 22.04.2014 of Respondent No. 4

referred to in Exhibit S page 102 by Deponent Satish Arjun

Chavan seeking permission for tenantable repairs is
suppressed by both the Respondent No .1 and the Respondent
no. 4 . The collusion and corruption of Respondent No.1 with
Respondent No. 4 is evident without a shadow of doubt.

63.

I say that in the Affidavits of 06.05 2014 and

06.01.2015, MCGM Deponents have come out with two

different stories to cover up for their collusion with
Respondent No 4. The Deponents took photographs of the

actual work being carried out and are aware that the additions
and alterations exceed the purview of section 342, hence
neither of them have annexed any photograph as Exhibits. I
say that photographs taken by the Petitioners on directions of
the Honble Court dated 30th April 2014 are part of the
Petition and they expose the falsehood of the Respondents in
jeopardising the safety of the building.

The following prayers be added after prayer clause ( c) as

under:
(c-i) By an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature
of writ, the Respondent nos. 5, 6, 7 and 9 be directed to carry
out structural audit of the entire building and structural
repairs of the collapsed common areas of the entire building
immediately so as to be completed before the onset of
monsoon rains, as has been directed by the First Response
Disaster Control team and not followed by Respondent nos. 1
to 3 despite their own MCGM notices and norms ( page 101 of
WP).

(c-ii)

the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 be directed not to give any

permission and not to allow Respondent no. 4 to carry any

work of civil nature, repairs etc. in flat No. 6 of the Rath
Mansion Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. till the building of
Rath Mansion CHSL is structurally reinforced and secured
and completed in all respects;

(c-iii) pending the hearing and final disposal of the Writ

Petition, ad interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer
clause (c-i) and (c-ii) be granted;

(c-iv) Respondent No. 4 be directed/ ordered to restore the

structural damage to the Petitioners beams and columns in
their Flat nos. 7 and 8 above before any permission can be
given to Respondent no. 4 to carry out any work of a civil
nature in his flat.

(c-v) Respondents No.1 to 3 and 8 to ensure that the cantilever

balcony in Flat No. 6 is retained as a dry balcony.

Mumbai, this 16th day of February 2015

Advocate for the Petitioners