Disposed

Bhagwanji Raiyani v. Maharashtra Met. Region Dev. Authority and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2015PIL/67/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL concerning alleged defects in the construction of the Lalbaug flyover, the court found the cited incidents insufficient to justify prosecuting the responsible company or appointing an independent structural auditor. The petition demanding a shutdown of the bridge was dismissed, and the authorities were directed to continue monitoring. Quality assessed as thin.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bhagwanji Raiyani Vs Maharashtra Met… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 PIL67-12

¶2

sas

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.67 OF 2012

¶6

Bhagwanji Raiyani ..Petitioner.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Maharashtra Metropolitan Regional Development Authority & Ors.

¶9

..Respondent.

¶10

Ms.Rumana Bagdadi i/b. Sumedha Rao for the petitioner. Ms. Kiran Bagalia for Respondent No.1- MMRDA. Mr. D.A. Nalavade, G.P. for Respondent No.2. Mr. Anand Kulkarni i/b. Dushyant Purekar for Respondent No.3.

¶11

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND A.K. MENON, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 9TH JANUARY, 2015

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

The issued raised in the present PIL relates to the construction of flyover at Lalbaug and inter alia seeks prosecution of Respondent No.3 Company which was engaged in the construction of 2.6 kms. flyover bridge at Lalbaug. The Petitioner claims to be a qualified Civil Engineer. He cites three incidents of mishaps alluding to the defective construction of the flyover. Firstly, on 3^rd November, 2010, a cantilever of the bridge under construction collapsed and fell

¶15

2 PIL67-12

¶16

on the road, yet Respondent Nos.1 & 2 did not take any action against Respondent No.3. Secondly, in June, 2011 within ten days of inauguration, potholes were observed on the bridge surface and though a probe was ordered, but no action was taken. Thirdly, on 12^th April, 2012, a concrete block fell on to the road below whereupon Respondent No.1 announced a thorough inspection and directed Respondent No.3 to carry out repairs.

¶17

According to the Petitioner, defects in the construction are being covered by cosmetic repairs without independent qualified experts carrying out a structural audit. The Petitioner's grievance is that inspite of these incidents, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have failed to lodge criminal proceedings against Respondent No.3 for endangering the lives of citizens.

¶18

The Petitioner desires that Respondent No.3 may be called upon to dismantle and rebuilt the bridge. In these circumstances, the Petitioner seeks prosecution of Respondent No.3 and inter alia seeking qualified engineers to carry out the structural audit. The Petitioner also seeks interim measures restraining Respondent No.3 from carrying out repairs, stopping the motorists from using the flyover and pedestrians

¶19

3 PIL67-12

¶20

from walking below and around the bridge.

¶21

Mr.Harish Chohan, the Senior Manager of Respondent No.3 has filed an affidavit in reply by which the contentions of the Petitioner are disputed and it is contended that the Petitioner has merely relied upon a newspaper article without verifying the contents of the same and without understanding the cause for the three incidents. It is contended that Respondent No.3 has followed the I.R.C. Standards Specification and Codes of Practice for Roads and Bridges and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORT & H) Specifications for Road and Bridge Works, 2001. It is contended that these two codes lay down necessary specifications and data. Respondent No.3 had also appointed Project Management Consultants and the design and specifications for construction of the flyover were released to them on the basis of the opinion of Project Management Consultants. The representatives of the Project Management Consultants were present on the construction site for supervision and monitoring the construction. Referring to the specific instances, it is pointed out that the first case of accident occurred while positioning girder between pillar No.75 & 76. During the procedure, the trolley carrying the launching girder accidentally came off the track and the

¶22

4 PIL67-12

¶23

cantilever collapsed. As far as the second incident of potholes is concerned, it is contended that a period of 15 days is required before onset of monsoon so that the bituminous surfaces becomes impervious so as to act as a seal coat. Due to change in atmospheric condition and heavy rains, which commenced early after the construction and thereafter on completion of asphalting process, this process of sealing could not be completed. Short and long term measures have been provided which have since been implemented by Respondent No.3.

¶24

As far as collapse of the concrete piece is concerned, it is contended that the bridge has expansion joints which are required to be put in place and at an expansion joint there is a non structural component which is called “ finn ”. This “finn” came to be dislodged in a one off incident which cannot be attributed to any “defect”. It is contended that no criminal liability could attributed.

¶25

Having considered the the facts and the contentions in the petition, we are of the opinion that the three instances cannot be attributed to incompetence in undertaking the construction. There have been no persisting difficulties that have been pointed out by the Petitioner so as

¶26

5 PIL67-12

¶27

to justify the issuance of any directions to prosecute Respondent No.3. The instances cited do not lead us to believe that it is necessary to institute any proceedings against Respondent No.3 in the facts of the case. It does not appear to be necessary in the facts of the case to appoint a structural auditor in view of the fact that there are no grievance made out since the last of the incidents in April, 2012. While such incidents cannot be overlooked or passed off as routine, we have no doubt that the authorities, including Respondent No.1 will conduct regular checks as may be advised in the construction business to prevent any incidents hereafter. As far as the other prayers seeking to restrain Respondent No.3 from carrying out the repairs and to stop the use of the flyover by motorists and pedestrians from using the flyover are concerned, these are far fetched and are not justified in the facts of the present case.

¶28

In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of with the observation that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 will continue to monitor and carry out timely preventive checks and take steps to maintain the bridge at all times. No order as to costs.

Bhagwanji Raiyani v. Maharashtra Met. Region Dev. Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bhagwanji Raiyani v. Maharashtra Met. Region Dev. Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joshi Shivshankar Jathashankar Vs the Superintendent General Stamp Office and 3 Ors.

Arun George Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 Others

Vanashakti, a Public Trust and 4 Ors. Vs the Chairman and 3 Ors.

Vidarbha Pradesh Prakalpagrasta Sangharsha Samiti, Thr President, Amravati and Anr. Vs State of Maha. Thr Secretary, Dept of Education, Mumbai and Others

Samaj Kranti Aghadi Thr. Its President Vs Dept. of Home Affairs Thr. Its Secty., and Ors.

Vijay Janardan Deshpande Vs Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation Nagpur

G.C. Singh Vs Govt. of Maharashtra Public Works Dept. Thr. Secty., and Anr.

Nainesh Suresh Dolas Vs the Chairman of Aicte, All India Council for Technical Education and Ors.

Ratnagiri Sahakari Majoor Sanstha Maryadit, Ratnagiri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Sunil Nemchand Shah and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Lakhbir Singh Matharu Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors.

Mr. Ratilal Mana Patel Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors.

Mr. Gokul Karamsi Gothi Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors.