Nagpur High Court Takes Firm Stand on Unpaid Demolition Costs
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has taken a strict stance against a developer's non-compliance with court orders, refusing to hear his submissions until he deposits demolition costs for illegal constructions. The division bench of Justices Urmila Phalke Joshi and Nivedita Mehta made it clear that financial obligations must be met before any legal arguments would be considered.
Court's Sharp Rebuke to Developer
During the hearing, the bench expressed strong displeasure at developer N Kumar's continued failure to deposit ₹41.37 lakh with the Nagpur Municipal Corporation as directed. The court noted with concern that even the initial amount of ₹9 lakh, which was expected to be paid by this point, remained undeposited. The bench sharply observed, "First pay the demolition cost, then your submissions will be heard," emphasizing that relief cannot be sought without fulfilling financial obligations.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from a petition filed by Kumar challenging demolition notices issued for unauthorized structures in two buildings: Poonam Chambers and Poonam Tower. During proceedings, the Nagpur Municipal Corporation informed the court that demolition work at Poonam Tower had already been completed, while work at Poonam Chambers was underway and nearing completion.
Multiple Compliance Issues
The court identified several compliance issues beyond just the financial aspect:
- Inappropriate representation: The bench took exception to Kumar being represented by chartered accountant Abhiruchi Agrawal, despite earlier directives that he must either appear in person or engage a qualified advocate. Agrawal's continued appearance drew further criticism from the court.
- Technical difficulties: Later in the day, Kumar attempted to join the hearing via video conference, but technical issues prevented proceedings from proceeding smoothly.
- Unpaid amounts: The NMC, represented by Gemini Kasat, reiterated that ₹9.97 lakh relating specifically to Poonam Tower remained unpaid, highlighting the ongoing financial non-compliance.
Court's Final Position and Adjournment
Recording the failure to comply with repeated orders, the bench made it unequivocally clear that no submissions would be entertained until the required amount is fully deposited with the municipal corporation. The court emphasized that the petitioner cannot seek legal relief without first meeting the financial responsibilities arising from the demolition of illegal constructions.
Taking note of all these factors, the court reiterated its firm stance and adjourned the matter to April 18 for further proceedings. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring compliance with court orders, particularly when public resources are involved in addressing illegal constructions.
