Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday questioned the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) over continued occupation of high-rise buildings in Mumbai without Occupation Certificates (OC) and Fire NOCs, warning that civic inaction could be seen as “tacit approval” of such illegalities.
“Are you going to shut your eyes or are you going to take some action?” a bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Arif Doctor asked the BMC. “We want in the affidavit what should be done as on date when the fire NOC is not there. If that statement is not there, then we’ll interpret that it is a tacit approval… that all buildings which are occupied without fire NOC can be occupied and lives of the people can be risked in this manner.”
The court was hearing a plea by Sunil B. Jhaveri (HUF), a member of the Wellingdon View Co-operative Housing Society in Tardeo. The 34-storey building has OC only up to the 16th floor, but all floors above, up to the 34th, have been occupied since 2011 despite lacking a Fire NOC from the Mumbai Fire Brigade.
Noting the larger issue of illegal occupancy in high-rises, the judges said they would frame broader guidelines: “These will be an example for all buildings and high-rises,” the bench remarked.
BMC counsel SU Kamdar submitted that parts of the structure, such as a garden at the entrance that blocks fire engine access, could not be regularised. He assured the court there would be “no compromise” on the fire NOC requirement and that corrective steps would be taken where needed. He also stated that while OC was granted up to the 16th floor in 2006, subsequent alterations by flat owners or the developer would need to be regularised, if permissible.
The bench, however, demanded a categorical affidavit on enforcement steps taken in such cases. “What steps does the corporation take in regard to such buildings? If that statement is not there, then we will say it is tacit approval of BMC,” Justice Doctor said.
Advocate Dinyar Madon, for the housing society, claimed they had conducted regular fire audits and addressed fire department objections. He said the garden was meant to prevent encroachment on open spaces outside the society gate.
Petitioner’s advocate Karl Tamboly pointed out that a fire had broken out on the 17th floor in 2018, underscoring the urgency of compliance.
The court observed that the building, constructed between 1990 and 2010, was occupied from 2011 without key approvals. “It should not look as if things are beyond control of BMC,” the bench said, adding, “Every time it should not be given the impression that SRA and BMC are least bothered with law.” The matter will be heard next on July 10.
