JUDGMENT - M.F. SALDANHA, J.:---The petitioner in this case is the owner of a building by the name of Bages Mansion, situated at M.G. Road, Ghatkopar, Bombay-400 086. He has unfortunately had to carry on a relantless litigation for almost a decade starting from the year 1981 and culminating with the present Criminal Writ Petition, because of the wholly unsatisfactory conduct on the part of certain officers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. 2. Briefly stated, as long back as in the year 1981, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Bombay Municipal Corporation Authorities to the effect that one Shri Hariprasad Sharma, who was a tenant of the petitioner and who was residing on the first floor of the building, had unauthorisedly constructed a w.c.; that he had also constructed a bathroom and that he had constructed a standing platform with lockers and washing sink for the purpose of cooking. The petitioner had complained about this construction for two reasons the first of them being that the unauthorised construction had a very damaging effect on the building in so far as it led to water seepage which was both dangerous and disastrous to the old building, and secondly, because the additional weight as a result of this construction was likely to endanger the very stability of the structure and the petitioner was afraid that it could result in the collapse of the building. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the complaint lodged by him, certain officers of the Corporation, acting in collusion with the tenant, took no action in the matter and it was for this purpose that the petitioner was ultimately required to file a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 42nd Court, Shinde Wadi, Dadar, Bombay, being Case No. 1/N of 1983, under section 513 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The respondent to this complaint was the Municipal Commissioner. It appears that in the course of this proceeding, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Municipal Commissioner filed a reply on 13-1-1984 in which the contention was taken up very specifically that the w.c., the bathroom and the kitchen platform are regularised as per the Bombay Municipal Corporation Rules and Regulations. It appears that in the course of this proceeding, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Municipal Commissioner filed a reply on 13-1-1984 in which the contention was taken up very specifically that the w.c., the bathroom and the kitchen platform are regularised as per the Bombay Municipal Corporation Rules and Regulations. It is on the basis of this statement made on behalf of the Municipal Commissioner that the petitioner demanded that the Authorities produce the relevant records, namely, the copies of the plans, the permission and such other relevant documents relating to the construction of the structures which, the petitioner had contended, were unauthorised. The petitioner was fully justified in demanding that these documents be produced and he had also insisted that the order of regularisation should be produced before the Court. It was the case of the petitioner that he was entitled to take appropriate steps against the concerned officers or against the Bombay Municipal Corporation for having permitted the un-authorised structures or, in the alternative, for having regularised the same and he, therefore insisted that the documents should be produced. It appears that from time to time various orders came to be passed directing the production of these documents and the Bombay Municipal Corporation Authorities initially contended that the same were with the Legal Department, but thereafter took up the stand that the documents were not in existence. The matter had come up to this Court as a contempt notice had been issued to the Municipal Commissioner for having disobeyed the order of the Court as far as the production of the documents was concerned, but the notice appears to have been discharged by this Court and the matter was remanded once again to the learned Magistrate. 3. After the remand, the petitioner applied to the Court for the issuance of a search warrant since that was the only remedy left open to him. The learned Magistrate passed an order issuing a search warrant which appears to have been forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Azad Maidan Police Station. 3. After the remand, the petitioner applied to the Court for the issuance of a search warrant since that was the only remedy left open to him. The learned Magistrate passed an order issuing a search warrant which appears to have been forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Azad Maidan Police Station. The conduct of the Police at this stage of the case leaves very much to be desired in so far as they initially sent the search warrant back on some flimsy and frivolous ground and when the petitioner persisted and the search warrant was once again sent to the police, they returned the same on the ground that the documents are not with the Head Office of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. It is material to point out that even at this stage, the Bombay Municipal Corporation Authorities did not clarify the position that, in fact, no order of regularisation had been passed and that none of the structures, had in fact, been regularised by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Thereafter an application was made that the search warrant be forwarded to the Commissioner of Police because it was the case of the petitioner that he had virtually been made to run from pillar to post because of the improper manner in which the Bombay Municipal Corporation's Officers had been behaving. He, therefore, contended before the trial Court that if the search warrant were to be sent to the Commissioner of Police, that the Police Authorities could be directed to ascertain from the record maintained either at the head office or with the legal department or at the ward office or the engineering section or whichever quarters through which the documents relating to this case were retained at, and that the record could be produced before the Court. The learned Magistrate, however, on the basis of the submissions made before him, recorded the finding that it was pointed out to the Court that the construction in question was unauthorised and that, consequently, the documents, such as the application, the permission, etc., could not have been in existence at all. It is against this order that the petitioner has moved this Court being aggrieved by the conduct of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Officers and the manner in which the proceeding was conducted on their behalf before the trial Court over the years. 4. I have heard Mr. It is against this order that the petitioner has moved this Court being aggrieved by the conduct of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Officers and the manner in which the proceeding was conducted on their behalf before the trial Court over the years. 4. I have heard Mr. Mehere, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Mrs. Chheda, learned Counsel appearing an behalf of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Mr. Mehere has pointed out to me that the petitioner has suffered very seriously in so far as because of the unauthorised construction a part of the building has, in fact, collapsed and he further contends that the submission made on behalf of the Bombay Municipal Corporation that the bathroom and the remaining part of the unauthorised structure was demolished in December 1990 is not wholly correct in so far as the structure itself came down because of the water and the additional weight, thanks to the collusive acts of the tenant and the Bombay Municipal Corporation's officers who did not have to exert themselves to demolish anything. It further appears from the record that as far as the w.c. was concerned that the same was demolished by the Bombay Municipal Corporation in the year 1982. Mrs. Chheda, therefore, pointed out that none of the unauthorised structures are admittedly in existence today and, therefore, no prejudice can be caused to the petitioner hereinafter. 5. Mrs. Chheda has pointed out to me that she has meticulously checked all the files and the records maintained by the Bombay Municipal Corporation which are produced in Court. As a responsible Counsel representing the Municipal Commissioner and the Municipal Corporation, Mrs. Chheda has frankly told the Court that unfortunately the starting point of the trouble arose because of the incorrect reply filed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Municipal Commissioner in the year 1984 when he wrongly contended that all the structures in question had been regularised. Mrs. Chheda has further pointed out that at a subsequent point of time Mr. Bapat, the Assistant Municipal Engineer has filed a detailed affidavit before the Court in which affidavit he has clarified the correct position which, on behalf of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Authorities, Mrs. Chheda mentions, is the correct state of affairs. Mrs. Chheda has further pointed out that at a subsequent point of time Mr. Bapat, the Assistant Municipal Engineer has filed a detailed affidavit before the Court in which affidavit he has clarified the correct position which, on behalf of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Authorities, Mrs. Chheda mentions, is the correct state of affairs. It is necessary to record that the Bombay Municipal Corporation has now pointed out on the basis of the records to this Court that the correct factual position is as follows :- A) That the tenant Sharma had not at any time applied to the Bombay Municipal Corporation for permission to construct either the w.c., the bathroom or the kitchen platform and the additional structures about which the petitioner has complained. B) That the statement made to the Court in the year 1984 was erroneous and incorrect in so far as at no point of time had the Bombay Municipal Corporation Authorities regularised any of the unauthorised structures. C) That the Bombay Municipal Corporation itself had demolished the w.c. as early as in 1982. It is true that certain Engineers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation had initially taken the view that as far as the bathroom and the other structures were concerned that if the same were duly rectified by a licensed plumber that these structures need not be demolished and to this extent it appears that the tenant Sharma had got a licensed plumber to carry out certain rectification and to submit a letter to this effect. The record, however, clarified that regardless of this, no formal order of regularisation in respect of these structures was passed by any of the appropriate authorities of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. 6 On the basis of the aforesaid clarification, which reflects the correct position of the record, it would no longer be permissible or advisable for any search warrant to be issued because that application would no longer survive. As far as the petitioner's application under section 515 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act is concerned which is pending before the trial Court, it is open to the petitioner to proceed with the said application, if he is so advised, and it is also open to the petitioner on the basis of the facts that have been recorded in this judgment to adopt such remedies as may be permissible to him under the law. 7. 7. Undoubtedly, it must be appreciated that Mrs. Chheda has sent for the entire record from the various offices of the Bombay Municipal Corporation and even at this late point of time that she has clarified the entire position as a result of which this protracted litigation is finally set at rest. This, however, does not exonerate the officers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation who, because of their dishonesty, were responsible at the earlier point of time from the stage when the petitioner moved the trial Court, for having made incorrect statements which unfortunately resulted in contempt proceedings against the Municipal Commissioner and a consequent reference to this High Court. 8. On the strength of the record before this Court, Mr. Mehere, advanced a submission to the effect that this Court must treat this complaint of his client not only as an individual grievance but virtually as a public interest complaint from the citizens of this city. He stated that the relevant laws contained stringent provisions for the prevention of any unauthorised building activity and in particular any unauthorised alteration. The Bombay Municipal Corporation Act fully empowers the Authorities not only to stop but to demolish all such illegal structures. Unfortunately, as has happened in the present case, even when a complaint is lodged, the officers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation have not only ignored the complaint but they function in total collusion with the wrong-doers by regularising such illegal structures or by permitting the same to continue. Mr. Mehere submitted that a citizen is totally helpless when a Municipal Authority motivated by corrupt means confers legality to an illegal structures by either regularising it or by issuing a licence for the business conducted therein, because the wrong-doer thereafter pleads a right in his favour even before a Court of law. He submitted that in these cases, the order of regularisation or grant of licence itself should be examined and revoked and that this should not be treated as a fait accompli. As a result of what Mr. Mehere described as "universal corruption" in the ranks of the Corporation's officers, he submitted that even the side-walks of this city are full of all sorts of illegal structures, making it impossible for the citizens to even use those areas. As a result of what Mr. Mehere described as "universal corruption" in the ranks of the Corporation's officers, he submitted that even the side-walks of this city are full of all sorts of illegal structures, making it impossible for the citizens to even use those areas. He invited the attention of this Court to the total usurpation of the side-walks and open spaces by 2 or 3 storeyed structures functioning under the patronage of the Bombay Municipal Corporation officers. 9. Though there is much substance and considerable truth in the grievance projected by Mr. Mehere on behalf of his client, the present criminal writ petition cannot, at this stage, be treated as a public interest litigation, but this Court, on the basis of the grievance placed before this Court, would be fully justified in directing the Municipal Commissioner to investigate into these charges and to take corrective action. As regards the illegal occupation of open spaces and particularly the areas such as roads and side-walks with the obvious connivance of the officers and staff of the Bombay Municipal Corporation and in many instances the officers and the staff of the State Government the citizens of Bombay are undoubtedly faced with a pathetic situation. Not only are unauthorised structures being permitted within the residential buildings as has happened in the present case but this Court will also have to take judicial notice of the total inaction on the part of the aforesaid authorities as far as unauthorised structures on roads and public side-walks are concerned. The argument that this state of affairs has come about and is worsening because of negligence on the part of the concerned authorities and without their knowledge is wholly unacceptable because the irresistible conclusion in all these cases is that whatever is permitted is continuing with the full connivance of the authorities in question. It has been pointed out to this Court that stringent action is taken in any of the cases where the officers and the staff are not obliged. This High Court has had occasion in a number of such cases to order the Bombay Municipal Corporation to compensate the victims wherever action was unjustified or the power exercised was excessive. It has been pointed out to this Court that stringent action is taken in any of the cases where the officers and the staff are not obliged. This High Court has had occasion in a number of such cases to order the Bombay Municipal Corporation to compensate the victims wherever action was unjustified or the power exercised was excessive. Reading between the lines, therefore, the irresistible conclusion that emerges is that structures are permitted, regularised or allowed to continue as long as it is profitable for the wrong-doers and for the Authority which is supposed to prevent such acts. Mr. Mehere is, therefore, justified in levelling a direct charge of corruption against the Bombay Municipal Corporation's officers. 10. Adverting to another distastful state of affairs which directly concerns the legal profession, Mr. Mehera, submitted that in this case it has come on record that the Advocate representing the Bombay Municipal Corporation before the lower Court had sided with the officers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation against whom there was a charge of colluding with the wrong-doers. He stated that it has now been conclusively established that false statements were made to the Court by the learned Advocate with the object of protecting both these categories of persons. Mr. Mehera went on to state that the situation in this city has deteriorated to the extent that even when there is a public protest and strong objection from the citizens to the obnoxious activities in the areas, which are not being stopped by the Bombay Municipal Corporation Authorities that the wrong-doers are set up to file civil suits and obtain injunctions from the civil Court with total co-operation of the Municipal lawyers and by misleading the courts. These injunctions are allowed to continue for years together and the Authorities plead helplessness to the citizens by blaming the courts for having stayed the action. It was submitted that the present case is not an isolated one, but that it has became almost the order of the day for such corrupt practices to be indulged in. Though the first part of Mr. Mehere's submissions is justified on the basis of the present record, as far as the generalized allegations that have been levelled are concerned, it would not be possible to consider any specific action at this stage in the absence of better and cogent material. Though the first part of Mr. Mehere's submissions is justified on the basis of the present record, as far as the generalized allegations that have been levelled are concerned, it would not be possible to consider any specific action at this stage in the absence of better and cogent material. That the occupants of unauthorised structures and the persons who construct them surprisingly do obtain injunctions from courts with systematic regularity and that these injunctions continue for long periods of time is, admittedly, true, but it will be necessary for the Bombay Municipal Corporation to scrutinize from an examination of each of the proceedings as to whether it is correct that the Corporation's representatives and lawyers, deliberately or otherwise, refrain from pointing out to the Court that false statements and false grounds have been relied upon. More importantly, where such improperly obtained orders are allowed to continue for long period of time because of the collusion with the representatives of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, a degree of seriousness and alarm is generated which does require a thorough enquiry. Prima facie, it does appear shocking in numerous cases where the Authorities come out with the plea that they are confronted with a Court injunction order/that the Authorities are not honest enough to disclose that the order was passed because they did not resist the application or because they did not place the correct facts before the Court and that the order has not been vacated because they have not approached the Court even later on with a valid and correct application. Since this case has thrown up these issues in sharp focus, it is the duty of this Court to direct an investigation into the matter. 11. As a citizen, the petitioner was legitimately entitled to appropriate action when he lodged his initial complaint in 1981 which was unfortunately not forthcoming. The charge of the petitioner that the subordinate officers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation at the relevant time were acting in total collusion with the tenant, Shri Sharma, is wholly and fully justified from the record of this case. The fact that the petitioner who was only agitating for his right has been required to litigate continuously through the course for several years would legitimately entitle him to claim exemplary costs from the Bombay Municipal Corporation in this case. The fact that the petitioner who was only agitating for his right has been required to litigate continuously through the course for several years would legitimately entitle him to claim exemplary costs from the Bombay Municipal Corporation in this case. Though the award of such costs may not in fact, be adequate for the trauma and the trouble to which the petitioner was subjected to over the years, it is equally essential as far as the administration of justice is concerned that the petitioner be awarded such exemplary costs as and by way of compensation. Under these circumstances, the Bombay Municipal Corporation is hereby directed to pay to the petitioner compensatory costs quantified in the sum of Rs. 2, 500/-. The Criminal Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. 12. Mrs. Chheda, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, made a very strong plea to this Court that compensatory costs should not be awarded against the Bombay Municipal Corporation. In the alternative, she submitted that even if costs are to be awarded, the same should be minimal. She has clarified that the Bombay Municipal Corporation's learned Counsel has had appeared before the Court and has produced the relevant record and has assisted the Court satisfactory and that, consequently, the award of costs in this proceeding may not be justified. It is true, as pointed out by Mrs. Chheda, that learned Counsel for the Bombay Municipal Corporation has done not only a good but an admirable job in the course of this proceeding and that no impression should be created that the compensatory costs have anything to do with what transpired before this Court. As indicated by me in the judgment, the misconduct of the Bombay Municipal Corporation's officers right from the time when the petitioner instituted his complaint in the year 1981, which was aggravated and compounded by false statements made on the instructions of these officers by the Municipal lawyer appearing before the trial Court, has resulted in a series of proceedings involving heavy expenditure to the petitioner and consumption of considerable amount of judicial time. This proceeding is an extension of the earlier litigation, and it is clarified that the compensatory costs are awarded in view of what had transpired in the course of the earlier proceedings and not in the course of the hearing of the present case. This proceeding is an extension of the earlier litigation, and it is clarified that the compensatory costs are awarded in view of what had transpired in the course of the earlier proceedings and not in the course of the hearing of the present case. I have no hesitation in recording, as has been indicated by me earlier, that the learned Counsel who represented the Bombay Municipal Corporation has done an admirable job before this Court which has considerably played down the seriousness of the matter. Normally, from the present record, compensation in the sum of at least Rs. 10,000/- by way of costs would have been justified, but the amount was considerably scaled down mainly because of the corrective action that has been taken by the Municipal Counsel at this stage to contain and conclude the litigation. 13. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Municipal Commissioner, Greater Bombay, who shall take note of the observations made in relation to the misconduct of the officers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation who are directly responsible for the mass outbreak of such illegal structures all over the city of Bombay as also the thoroughly and totally unsatisfactory manner in which the litigation on behalf of the Bombay Municipal Corporation is being conducted before some of the courts where the lawyers representing the Bombay Municipal Corporation are functioning in total collusion with the wrong-doers. The Municipal Commissioner shall within one month of the receipt of a copy of this judgment report back to this Court as to what concrete steps are being taken by way of specific remedial action in respect of these matters. 14. The Bombay Municipal Corporation Authorities shall pay the costs of Rs. 2,500/- to the petitioner within one month. Order accordingly. -----