[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Assistant Engineer, Bldg. And Factory D ... vs Parekh Market Premises Society Limited ... on 16 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:55329
AO(ST)21622-2024-J.doc
Priyanka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 21622 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.21627 OF 2024
1. Assistant Engineer (B&F), ]
'D' Ward Municipal Office, Jobanputra ]
Compound, Nana Chowk, ]
Mumbai - 400 007. ]
2. Hydraulic Engineer, ]
'D' Ward Municipal Office, Jobanputra ]
Compound, Nana Chowk, ]
Mumbai - 400 007. ]
3. The Municipal Corporation of ]
Greater Bombay, a Body Corporate ]
constituted under the Bombay ]
Municipal corporation Act, 1888, ]
having its office at Mahapalika Marg, ]
Opp. C.S.T., Fort, Bombay - 400 001. ]
4. Assistant Divisional Officer, ]
Mumbai Fire Brigade Byculla Compound ]
Centre Building, 2nd Floor, Bapurao ]
Jagtap Marg, Byculla, Mumbai - 400 008. ]
5. Divisional Fire Officer, Mumbai Fire ]
Brigade, Byculla Compound Centre Building, ]
2nd Floor, Bapurao Jagtap Marg, Byculla, ]
Mumbai - 400 008. ]
6. Dy. Chief Fire Officer, Mumbai Fire ]
Brigade, Byculla Compound Centre Building, ]
2nd Floor, Bapurao Jagtap Marg, Byculla, ]
Mumbai - 400 008. ] ... Appellants
Versus
1. Parekh Market Premises Society ]
Limited a Society registered under the ]
Digitally
signed by
1/6
SUMEDH
SUMEDH NAMDEO
NAMDEO SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2025.12.16
17:22:36
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 16/12/2025 21:03:21 :::
AO(ST)21622-2024-J.doc
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, ]
1960, Paper Mill Lane, 39, Kennedy Bridge, ]
Opera House, Mumbai - 400 004. ]
2. BEST Undertaking, having its ]
rd
Branch Office at 3 Floor, New ]
Administrative Building Tardeo Complex, ]
Near Navjeevan Society, R. S. Nimkar Marg, ]
Tardeo, Mumbai - 400 008 and its Main ]
Office at BEST Bhavan, BEST Marg, Colaba, ]
Mumbai - 400 001. ] ... Respondent
(Original Defendants No. 3)
3. State of Maharashtra, ]
Through Sr. Police Inspector, ]
Dr. D. B. Marg Police Station, Mumbai. ] ...Respondent
(Original Defendants No. 8)
Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, Senior Counsel a/w for the Appellant.
Mr. Pradeep Dubey for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Parekh Singh for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.
RESERVED ON : 3RD DECEMBER 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 16TH DECEMBER 2025.
JUDGMENT:
1) By this Appeal from Order, the Appellants challenge the
common Order dated 3rd February 2024 passed by the learned Judge,
Bombay City Civil Court, in Notice of Motion No. 4395 of 2015 and
Notice of Motion No. 2117 of 2023 in L. C. Suit No. 2599 of 2015 filed by
Respondent No. 1.
2) By the said order, the Chief Fire Officer (CFO) and other
concerned authorities were restrained from vacating and sealing the
AO(ST)21622-2024-J.doc
premises on the 9th and 10th Floor of the Appellant's building by the
Chief Fire Officer (CFO) and from taking any coercive action pursuant
to letter dated 27th October 2015 and Order dated 22nd September
2020, pending the disposal of the suit.
Brief facts:
3) The present suit pertains to the question of adequacy of
ingress and egress in relation to fire safety compliance in respect of the
building known as Parekh Market Premises Co-operative Society
Limited (the Society), located near Kennedy Bridge, South Mumbai. It
is a commercial building comprising of Ground plus Ten floors, was
constructed in 1981, and the occupation certificate for the 10 th Floor
was granted in the year 1994.
4) Pursuant to a complaint received on 20 th March 2015 from
Mr. Jeetendra Ghadge, a resident of Parekh Estate Building, alleging
non-compliance of fire protection requirements by the Society, the
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) issued a Complaint
Report dated 7th April 2015, holding that the Society had failed to
comply with the undertakings dated 16 th October 1978 and 24th May
1979.
5) It is the Society's case that, despite correspondence with
the concerned authorities and supplying them with the necessary
documents, including the Occupation Certificate of the building, the
AO(ST)21622-2024-J.doc
Assistant Engineer (B&F) 'D' ward by a letter dated 27 th October 2015,
directed the Assistant Engineer (Customer Care) D ward of BEST
Undertaking to disconnect water and electricity supply to the 9 th and
10th floors of the building.
6) Aggrieved thereby, the Society filed the present suit, inter
alia seeking a declaration that the letter dated 27 th October 2015 was
illegal, arbitrary, and bad in law. By an interim order passed in the
Notice of Motion No. 4395 of 2015, the Trial Court directed the CFO to
comply with procedure under Section 8(1) of the Maharashtra Fire
Prevention & Life Safety Measures Act, 2006 ('Fire Prevention Act' for
short).
7) The Society preferred Appeal from Order No. 147 of 2020.
However, pending the Appeal, the CFO passed an order dated 22 nd
September 2020 directing removal of persons from the 9 th and 10th
Floor of the building.
8) Consequently, with the leave of the Trial Court, the Plaint
was amended to also challenge the order dated 22nd September 2020.
9) By the impugned order dated 3rd February 2024, the Trial
Court, after considering the material on record, held that there was no
breach of condition or violation of the sanctioned plan. The society has
two entrances - the main entrance (7 meters wide) and the rear
entrance (3.8 meter wide), which had been widened from 2.75 meters
AO(ST)21622-2024-J.doc
to 3.8 meters pursuant to the Society's undertaking. Both the
entrances abut public roads.
10) The Trial Court rightly observed that once an Occupation
Certificate is issued, there is no provision under the BMC Act for its
revocation. After considering all the relevant aspects and reports, it
concluded that there was no justification to disconnect the water and
electricity supply of the 9th and 10th floors of the building since it has
adequate fire-engine access. Accordingly, both Notice of Motions Nos.
4395 of 2015 and 2117 of 2023 were allowed.
11) Having carefully perused the impugned order along with
the record and heard Mr. Walavalkar, learned Senior Counsel for the
Appellant, whose submissions were both fair and balanced, I find that
the interlocutory order is comprehensive, well-reasoned and free from
any perversity.
12) The Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. v Antox India P Ltd., 1
held that the Appellate Court will not ordinarily interfere with the
discretion exercised by the Trial Court, unless such discretion is shown
to be arbitrary, capricious or perverse, or where settled principles of
law governing grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions have been
ignored. An appeal against exercise of discretion is an appeal on
principle, and the Appellate Court will not reassess the material
1990 Supp SCC 727 : 1990 SCC OnLine SC 490
AO(ST)21622-2024-J.doc
merely to reach a different conclusion if the view taken by the Trial
Court was reasonably possible on the material before it.
13) In view of the above, the Appeal from Order stands
dismissed.
14) Consequently, in view of the dismissal of the Appeal,
Interim Application does not survive and accordingly same is also
disposed of.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.)
