Whether the court should interfere if municipal corporation issues notice for demolition of the dangerous building?

   Moreover, it is not for the Court to satisfy itself whether the building was in a dangerous condition when the notice was issued. The fact that part of the building has been already pulled down and the majority of the occupants have no grievance against the pulling down itself further shows that the allegations of mala fides made against the Assistant Engineer is baseless. The criterion of the building being in a ruinous condition or dangerous to the occupants and to the passers-by, as required by Section 354, has been applied by the Assistant Engineer in the notice which mentions that the building “is in a ruinous condition, likely to fall and dangerous to any Person occupying, resorting to or passing by the same”. As Lord Halsbury stated in Westminster Corporation v. London and North Western Railway, 1905 AC 426,

“Where the legislature has confided the power to a particular body, With a discretion how it is to be used, it is beyond the power of any Court to contest that discretion”. {Para 27}

28. In the absence of anything to show abuse of the discretion or mala fide or capricious exercise of the discretion, it must, therefore be held that the contention of the petitioners that there was an unfair discrimination against them as citizens in violation of their right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is without any foundation.

 Bombay High Court

(Before K.K. Desai and Vaidya, JJ.)

Diwanchand Gupta  Vs N.M. Shah 

Special Civil Appln. No. 259 of 1970, 

Decided on July 1, 1971

Citation: 1971 SCC OnLine Bom 30 : AIR 1972 Bom 316

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page