The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed a foundational principle of administrative law: no structure, however unauthorized, may be demolished without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard. This ruling, delivered across six consolidated appeals, restores procedural safeguards that had been routinely bypassed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, residents and property owners in Mumbai, challenged demolition orders issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai without prior notice or hearing. The structures in question ranged from residential extensions to commercial sheds, all alleged to be in violation of building bylaws. The Corporation proceeded with demolition under Section 367 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, asserting that the structures were illegal and required immediate removal.
Procedural History
The cases were initially filed as writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, which were dismissed by single judges on the ground that the structures were clearly unauthorized. The appellants filed appeals against these orders, arguing that the absence of notice violated fundamental principles of natural justice. The appeals were consolidated for hearing due to identical legal issues.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought quashing of the demolition orders and a declaration that no structure may be demolished without serving a statutory notice under Section 367, allowing time to show cause and seek regularization.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 367 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 permits immediate demolition without prior notice, or whether natural justice requires a reasonable opportunity to be heard before enforcement action.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The appellants relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to argue that natural justice is an inherent component of all statutory powers, even those granting emergency powers. They contended that Section 367 does not expressly dispense with notice, and that the Corporation’s practice of summary demolition violates the principle of audi alteram partem. They cited Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. B. S. Bajwa to show that courts have consistently held notice mandatory unless the statute explicitly excludes it.
For the Respondent
The Corporation argued that Section 367 empowers it to act swiftly against illegal constructions that endanger public safety or violate zoning norms. It claimed that notice would allow owners to further encroach or conceal evidence, rendering enforcement futile. It relied on State of Maharashtra v. S. R. Patil to assert that municipal authorities have inherent power to remove obstructions without delay.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Section 367 and found no express exclusion of notice. It emphasized that statutory powers must be exercised in a manner consistent with constitutional guarantees under Article 14 and Article 21. The Court distinguished State of Maharashtra v. S. R. Patil, noting that case involved structures posing imminent danger to life, whereas the present cases concerned non-emergency violations.
"The power to demolish cannot be a power to deprive without hearing. The absence of a notice provision does not negate the requirement of natural justice; it merely requires the authority to act reasonably and fairly."
The Court held that procedural fairness is not a luxury but a legal obligation, even in municipal enforcement. It rejected the notion that urgency justifies bypassing notice, stating that a 7-15 day notice period would not frustrate enforcement but would ensure legitimacy.
The Verdict
The appellants succeeded. The Court held that notice under Section 367 is mandatory before demolition, and that the Corporation’s failure to issue notice rendered all impugned orders void. The demolition orders were quashed, and the Corporation was directed to initiate fresh proceedings with proper notice.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Notice Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must now challenge any demolition order lacking prior notice as a violation of natural justice, regardless of the structure’s legality
- Municipal authorities must serve notice specifying the violation, the deadline to respond, and the consequences of non-compliance
- Affidavits of service must be filed to prove notice was received, not merely dispatched
Emergency Exceptions Are Narrowly Construed
- Only structures posing immediate threat to life or public infrastructure (e.g., collapsing walls, fire hazards) may be removed without notice
- The burden lies on the authority to prove imminent danger - general illegality is insufficient
- Courts will scrutinize claims of urgency with skepticism unless supported by engineering reports or photographs
Documentation Is Key
- All notices must be in writing, signed, and dated
- Oral warnings or public announcements do not satisfy statutory or constitutional requirements
- Failure to maintain proof of service will invalidate demolition proceedings even if the structure is illegal
