Bombay HC Slams BMC, Developer Over Illegal 34-Storey Tardeo Tower; Says Occupants Without OC Living At Own Risk
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has pulled up the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and sharply criticised a developer, Satellite Holdings, for “blatant illegalities” in constructing a 34-storey building in Tardeo without the required approvals, including mandatory fire safety clearances. The court made it clear that flat purchasers occupying floors without an Occupation Certificate (OC) - floors 17 to 34 - were doing so at their own peril.
“There are a lot of illegalities,” observed a bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Arif Doctor, while hearing a petition filed by Sunil B. Jhaveri (HUF), a member of the Willingdon View Co-operative Housing Society near Tardeo RTO.
The court noted that Satellite Holdings, the developer (Respondent No. 9), has carried out unauthorised constructions since 2020 and that the building was allowed to come up with “impunity” despite serious violations.
The construction of this building commenced in year 1990 and was completed in 2010, and the occupation of all the flats is from 2011.
Among the most alarming irregularities pointed out was the complete absence of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the chief fire officer of the Mumbai fire brigade for the 34-storey structure.
“Blatant illegality is of a building which has 34 floors, not having any approval from chief fire officer of BMC without which no person can occupy the building,” the court observed.
“What is further glaring and shocks our conscience is that floors 17 to 34 have no OC. Nonetheless, even with regard to these floors, which also have illegal construction, the same is being occupied,” the bench observed.
The court was scathing in its criticism of both the developer and the civic authorities: “We are at complete loss to understand how such illegality, and that too with impunity, can be tolerated by the municipal corporation… There is gross violation and breach of building laws and planning permissions, thereby creating a situation of lawlessness.”
It also took a dim view of attempts to regularise the construction. “All these persons intend to persuade that these violations be condoned by giving a complete go-by to lawful requirements while singing the routine mantra of regularisation,” the court remarked.
On the issue of fire safety, the court was unequivocal: “Compliance of fire safety norms in a 34-floor building, with 59 families residing, is non-negotiable. There cannot be any relaxation in any manner.” Referring to past incidents such as the Kamala Mills fire, the bench said, “Such examples are too many… and this is a matter of public concern.”
Raising fundamental questions, the bench asked: “Can such daylight violations of occupancy requirements be overlooked? Can any high-rise be permitted to be occupied in absence of fire safety norms? To any prudent person, the answer would certainly be in the negative.”
The court directed the chief fire officer to file an affidavit, by July 3, on the status of the building’s compliance with fire safety norms. The BMC’s building proposal department was also directed to clarify, by affidavit, whether any portion of the building has a valid OC at all.
Until further orders, the court said, “All flat purchasers who, in our prima facie opinion, illegally occupy flats on floors 17 to 34, shall continue to do so at their own risk and consequences in case of any untoward incident, including fire.”
“These occupants shall not hold the municipal corporation or any state authority responsible for any civil or criminal liability. They shall also be liable to third parties, including guards and domestic staff, in the event of harm or injury,” the court added.
The BMC was further asked to explain why water and electricity supply to the illegal floors has not been cut, and the municipal commissioner was directed to vet all affidavits before submission. The court also sought an explanation from the Inspector of lifts on how lift permissions were granted for the structure.