The Bombay High Court chastised the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for its arbitrary handling of a Project Affected Person (PAP). The petitioner, whose house was demolished by the BMC in November 2017, has not received rent or alternate accommodation since the demolition. This scenario underscores the BMC’s negligence and failure to uphold its responsibilities towards its citizens, despite being the wealthiest municipal corporation in India.
A division bench comprising Justices Mahesh Sonak and Kamal Khata criticised the BMC’s actions, highlighting the petitioner’s plight. The petitioner has been compelled to reside in Mahul village, a locality declared “unfit for human habitation” by the same court in 2019 due to severe air pollution. This forced relocation reflects the BMC’s disregard for the petitioner’s welfare and basic human rights. The petitioner’s plea to the court was straightforward: either provide rent or alternate accommodation. However, the BMC has been evasive, claiming an inability to secure alternate housing and resisting the High Court’s 2019 order to pay a monthly rent of Rs 15,000. This reluctance to comply with judicial directives further exacerbates the petitioner’s hardship.
The court’s rebuke was clear and stern. The bench emphasised that the BMC, after demolishing the petitioner’s home and recognising his eligibility for permanent alternate accommodation, cannot shirk its duty. The BMC’s inability to specify when it would provide such housing and its resistance to paying compensation or rent in lieu of accommodation was deemed unacceptable. “The richest municipal corporation in the country cannot act arbitrarily and ignore the plight of citizens whose homes it has demolished,” the bench observed. The court mandated the BMC to file an affidavit in response to the petition and ordered an interim rent payment of Rs 10,000 to the petitioner. Additionally, the bench highlighted that BMC’s stance could potentially violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee the right to equality and protection of life and personal liberty.
The hearing has been adjourned until July 19, with the court directing the BMC to outline the steps it has taken to acquire alternate accommodation for the petitioner and other affected individuals. This case not only sheds light on the BMC’s bureaucratic inertia but also serves as a reminder of the critical role municipal bodies play in safeguarding citizens’ rights and welfare.
