MUMBAI: Bombay high court recently set aside criminal prosecution against a 60-year-old woman for allegedly storing "household and hazardous articles" such as sarees in her garage in a Mumbai Central building. The complaint filed against her by BMC's junior engineers was under a provision that empowers them to take action to prevent breeding of mosquitoes.
The woman, a single mother, had filed a petition to have the BMC complaint of August 21, 2014, and order passed by a Dadar magistrate quashed. She had rushed to the high court for justice when the magistrate, not only issued summons to her the same day but later in October ordered her to furnish a bail of Rs 8000, including a bond of Rs 4000. The amount was 80% of the maximum fine she might have had to pay if convicted of the crime, under Section 471 of the BMC Act.
At the first hearing last November, the woman's counsel, Abhinav Chandrachud, argued that she was being prosecuted by the BMC for storing two steel cupboards with old sarees in her garage and a potted plant or two, on the grounds that this was "hazardous".Justice M L Tahaliyani, the judge who sentenced Ajmal Kasab to death, had immediately asked the BMC lawyer, "Why do you think sarees are hazardous?"
The judge read the BMC inspection report first issued last July and the complaint, which stated that storage of household and hazardous items created "a nuisance to the building premises.'' Chandrachud argued that the BMC hadn't specified what the hazardous items were. The judge agreed and said the complaint was "vague" and didn't specify what the "nuisance" committed was. The HC initially stayed the proceedings before the magistrate and on January 9 passed the final order.
Chandrachud argued that the BMC was charging the woman with section 381 of the BMC Act, a section that gives the BMC powers to take steps to prevent the breeding of mosquitos. "Storing cupboards in a garage had nothing to do with mosquitoes,'' he said. The judge appeared annoyed with the BMC and asked, "Has the BMC no other work than to file cases like this?" He said that there are people who do genuinely hazardous work in their garages, and the BMC lets them go by, but those who keep "a money plant without any money" in their garage are hauled up by the BMC for no reason. The court heard the BMC lawyer, H E Pimple.
"In the first place, it is very difficult to understand as to how the alleged acts of the Petitioner amount to nuisance. The BMC has not stated anything as to the nature of organic or inorganic material kept in the garages nor has the BMC stated what were the hazardous items kept in the garages," the judge said in his order adding, "in fact it was the duty of the civic officers to mention the details of articles found in the garage and the passage. It was for the court to decide whether or not it amounted to nuisance. In the absence of details, it is impossible for the trial court to decide whether the petitioner's acts amounted to nuisance. The proceedings need to be quashed.''
Print Page
The woman, a single mother, had filed a petition to have the BMC complaint of August 21, 2014, and order passed by a Dadar magistrate quashed. She had rushed to the high court for justice when the magistrate, not only issued summons to her the same day but later in October ordered her to furnish a bail of Rs 8000, including a bond of Rs 4000. The amount was 80% of the maximum fine she might have had to pay if convicted of the crime, under Section 471 of the BMC Act.
At the first hearing last November, the woman's counsel, Abhinav Chandrachud, argued that she was being prosecuted by the BMC for storing two steel cupboards with old sarees in her garage and a potted plant or two, on the grounds that this was "hazardous".Justice M L Tahaliyani, the judge who sentenced Ajmal Kasab to death, had immediately asked the BMC lawyer, "Why do you think sarees are hazardous?"
The judge read the BMC inspection report first issued last July and the complaint, which stated that storage of household and hazardous items created "a nuisance to the building premises.'' Chandrachud argued that the BMC hadn't specified what the hazardous items were. The judge agreed and said the complaint was "vague" and didn't specify what the "nuisance" committed was. The HC initially stayed the proceedings before the magistrate and on January 9 passed the final order.
Chandrachud argued that the BMC was charging the woman with section 381 of the BMC Act, a section that gives the BMC powers to take steps to prevent the breeding of mosquitos. "Storing cupboards in a garage had nothing to do with mosquitoes,'' he said. The judge appeared annoyed with the BMC and asked, "Has the BMC no other work than to file cases like this?" He said that there are people who do genuinely hazardous work in their garages, and the BMC lets them go by, but those who keep "a money plant without any money" in their garage are hauled up by the BMC for no reason. The court heard the BMC lawyer, H E Pimple.
"In the first place, it is very difficult to understand as to how the alleged acts of the Petitioner amount to nuisance. The BMC has not stated anything as to the nature of organic or inorganic material kept in the garages nor has the BMC stated what were the hazardous items kept in the garages," the judge said in his order adding, "in fact it was the duty of the civic officers to mention the details of articles found in the garage and the passage. It was for the court to decide whether or not it amounted to nuisance. In the absence of details, it is impossible for the trial court to decide whether the petitioner's acts amounted to nuisance. The proceedings need to be quashed.''
No comments:
Post a Comment