Read Time: 06 minutes

Citing the humanitarian aspect involved in the matter, the Municipal Commissioner, Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation has been directed by the Supreme Court to consider the representation submitted by a shopkeeper, who was a tenant of a certain premises which were required to be demolished because they were rendered unsafe for habitation, and provide him with an alternate accommodation.

Based on the material placed before the Court wherein the Municipal Corporation in response to a query under the Right to Information Act, 2005 had provided a list of structures with the availability of alternate accommodation, the Court directed the authorities to take a considered decision, after due and sympathetic consideration of the plea by one Dinesh Babulal Parmar.

Earlier, the Supreme Court in March 2021, granted Parmar and other shopkeepers time to vacate until April 30.

Since liberty was granted by the Court, the respondent Parmar along with other shopkeepers, submitted a representation to the Municipal Corporation.

The Municipal Corporation, while deciding the representation, stated that as and when the project on the site of the erstwhile structure comes up, the claim will be considered on priority.

The respondent thereafter moved the Bombay High Court in a writ petition in which the Division Bench, by an order dated May 28, 2021 (i) directed the Municipal Corporation to provide temporary alternate accommodation in the vicinity within four weeks; and (ii) permitted the first respondent to file fresh proceedings if permanent accommodation is not made available in eighteen months.

Aggrieved by this, the Municipal Corporation filed an Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the directions of the Bombay High Court.

The Corporation urged that that there was no warrant for the High Court to issue a direction that it must provide temporary alternate accommodation in the vicinity of the first respondent.

Advocate Subrat Birla informed the Court that there was an arbitration proceeding going on in respect of the project as a result of which actual completion of the project may be delayed, but in all probability, possession of alternate premises would be granted to the first respondent within four years.

Noting this, a bench of Justices Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and AS Bopanna remarked that the Court could not be oblivious of the fact that the first respondent was a small shopkeeper who was a tenant of the premises. It added,

"A period of four years for the completion of the project would leave the first respondent out of occupation and without a means of livelihood for an interminably long period. The first respondent has annexed to the counter affidavit a list of vacant premises of the Corporation (on the basis of information furnished to an RTI query) in which temporary alternate accommodation can be provided."

Thus, the bench directed the Municipal Commissioner to consider the representation submitted by the first respondent afresh.

"We accordingly direct the Municipal Commissioner to take a final decision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Court, having regard to what has been observed above", ordered the Court.

Cause Title: Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation & Ors vs Dinesh Babulal Parmar & Anr