HC’s Rebuke and Sentencing Directive A bench comprising Justices Ajay Gadkari and Kamal Khata issued a strong indictment, stating that the duo had “brazenly, wilfully, and successfully” flouted court orders dated June 22, 2006, and September 27, 2007. The court directed the registry to issue notices to Mahimtura and Gangji, asking them to appear on February 18, 2025, to explain why they should not be sentenced under the Contempt of Courts Act.

The court also directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) commissioner to personally file an affidavit outlining actions taken to restore the flats to their original state. This includes rebuilding the partition wall to separate the two flats, as per the sanctioned plan, and ensuring that the changes satisfy the housing society’s members.

Society’s Complaint and BMC’s Inaction The Sukhshanti Cooperative Housing Society Limited (CHSL) had complained that Mahimtura and Gangji amalgamated the flats, which included property owned by the late Dr. L. Soneji, by removing partition walls, installing shutters, and encroaching on common areas. These actions allegedly compromised the structural stability of the building.

The BMC issued three warning notices to the duo but failed to restore the flats to their original configuration. Despite the High Court granting the civic body permission to demolish the illegal construction in 2006, the notices were not implemented. The society escalated the matter by filing a suit in 2006 and later approaching the High Court again in September 2007.

Court’s Observations The judges noted that Mahimtura and Gangji claimed the flats were interconnected for over 25 years and argued that renovations were legal. They submitted BMC assessment bills and business licenses as evidence of commercial activity. However, the court dismissed these claims, stating that a license for commercial activity does not permit structural alterations or a change in land use.

“It is the respondents who have flouted the law. They have not obtained any permissions from BMC. They have taken advantage of being adjoining flat owners and illegally usurped late Dr. Soneji’s ownership premises without following the due process of law,” the bench remarked.

The court also expressed frustration with the BMC for selective enforcement of the law. “Non-implementation of directions passed by these courts would embolden and encourage offenders and bring the state to anarchy and lawlessness,” Justice Khata wrote for the bench.

Mandates for BMC and Civic Accountability The High Court directed the BMC commissioner to investigate why earlier notices were not enforced and to identify officers responsible for this lapse. The affidavit must also include details of any actions taken against those officials. The bench criticized the civic body for not seeking police assistance to ensure compliance with court orders and observed a trend of rising lawlessness due to weak enforcement.

The judges emphasized that the partition walls must be rebuilt immediately to prevent further danger to the building’s structural integrity and restore order.

Closing Remarks In a scathing critique, the court said, “Having seen a rise in this trend [for the] past several months, we have appraised the current municipal commissioner as well as the police commissioner to stem this rot.”

As the case unfolds, the February 18 hearing will determine the sentence and penalties for Mahimtura and Gangji, potentially setting a precedent for stronger judicial action against contempt and illegal construction.