JUDGMENT : (Prayer in W.P.No.2938 of 2020: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Ma.Aa.10.Na.Ka.No.Va.Thu.R4/8320/2019, dated 31.01.2020 and quash the same.) Common Order 1. The issues involved in all these Writ Petitions are common and hence, all these Writ Petitions are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order. 2. The petitioners have questioned the impugned notice issued by the Corporation of Chennai under Section 258 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and thereby locked and sealed all the shops in the shopping complex. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they have all been given the license to carry on business in the shop allotted to them and they were all abruptly given the impugned notice and all their shops were sealed and were deprived of their livelihood and according to the petitioners this is a colourable exercise of power by the Corporation of Chennai in order to demolish the entire structure and put up a new building. 4. The Corporation of Chennai has filed a counter affidavit and the relevant portions in the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:- “5. It is submitted that the subject Building, which is ascertained to be in dilapidated condition was built in the earmarked Corporation Private land which measures to an extents of 35 grounds 4567.87 sq. mt. out of which, approximately in an extent of 50,000 sq. ft. the subject building is built. 6. It is submitted that the Building consist of ground floor, First and Second Floor. The 1loor was constructed in the year 1971 and 1 and 2014 floor was constructed in the year 1985. The subject building consist of 17 shops in each floor respectively. ft. the subject building is built. 6. It is submitted that the Building consist of ground floor, First and Second Floor. The 1loor was constructed in the year 1971 and 1 and 2014 floor was constructed in the year 1985. The subject building consist of 17 shops in each floor respectively. The Building was found to be in dangerous for its dilapidated conditions, on receiving grievances from the various quarters, the Chairman of the ward counsel had requested by a Letter dated 30-11-2011 to the Zonal Officer to sought out the issue and to decide on the reconstruction of Supermarket in the said place which on its further course forwarded to the Buildings Department to act upon, where the Superintendent Engineering Building Department had on Inspection found that the Building in a dangerous condition and so by a Letter dated 12-08-2016 by same said above Letter had requested the Zonal Officer to take action on the dilapidated condition Building. As aforesaid, the subject building had been identified to be in a dilapidated condition in the year 2010 to 2011. And the allottees of the shops had been given with the knowledge that the Corporation intends to demolish in the subject building for its dangerous condition and in fact the ward counsel consisting of 16 councilor during the period 2011 to 2016 had convened the meeting at the Zonal Officer inviting the prominent persons / representative of the allottees and formed about the situation and intention of the Corporation and so the Statement showcasing that it was a sudden moment is totally Petitioners Statement Gulse and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. 7. It is submitted that the Petitioner is in occupation of 200 sq. ft. of shop herein no it is submitted that the Impugned Notice issued Under Section 258 of CCMC Act, 1919 is very clear in stating that the condition of the building is dilapidated and dangerous. And there arises no colourable exercise of power as averred by the Petitioner the extract of the Section 258 of the CCMC Act, 1919 is given here below for the convenience. “258. And there arises no colourable exercise of power as averred by the Petitioner the extract of the Section 258 of the CCMC Act, 1919 is given here below for the convenience. “258. Precaution in case of dangerous structure - (1) If any (structure) be deemed by the Commissioner to be in a ruinous state or dangerous to passers-by or to the occupiers of neighbouring structure, the commissioner may, by notice, required the owner or occupier to fence off take down secure or repair such (structure) so as to prevent any danger therefrom. (2) If immediate action is necessary, the commissioner may himself before giving such notice or before the period of notice expires fence off. take down secure or repair such (structure) or fence of a part of any streer or take such temporary measures as he thinks fit to prevent danger and the cost of doing so shall be recoverable from the owner or occupier in the manner provident in section 387. (3) If in the commissioner’s opinion, the said (structure is imminently dangerous to the inmate thereof the commissioner shall order the immediate evacuation thereof and any person disobeying may be removed by any police officer.” As in sub-clause (3) the Act empowers the Commissioner to evacuate the inmates of the dangerous building. The photographs taken in the various stages and the Letter dated 19-05-2016 by the Superintendent Engineer would stands to prove the building is in imminent danger. Further the floor of the building is totally damaged, exposing the concrete rods and whithered. 8) It is submitted that the Impugned Order issued Under Section 258 clearly exhibits the condition of the building and demands for the eviction of the shop premises. Further the flaws made by the Petitioner had been put in serial numbers and marked. Particularly the Resolution No.557 of 2019 dated 19-09-2019 is referred to wherein, the decision of the demolition of the dilapidated Shopping complex had been resolved. Hence the Impugned Notice is issued for eviction of the Petitioner on the ground that the Building is in dilapidated conditions. It is pertinent here to state that the original notice issued to be Petitioner highlights the serial No.1 and 4 and while receiving the notice the serial No.3 is marked. Further the Impugned Notice produced before this Hon’ble Court reflects the marking of the serial No.1, 2, 3 and 4. It is pertinent here to state that the original notice issued to be Petitioner highlights the serial No.1 and 4 and while receiving the notice the serial No.3 is marked. Further the Impugned Notice produced before this Hon’ble Court reflects the marking of the serial No.1, 2, 3 and 4. Hence, it is evident that the petitioner has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands. Further the Impugned Notice was issued on 31-01-2020 where the serial No.1 and 4 had been marked and the Petitioner had paid the Professional Tax on 13-02-2020. The attitude of the Petitioner is malafide and tries to abuse the process of law. 9) It is submitted that no allottee is using the 2 floor shops only, the shops that sub-tenanted particularly 2 to 3 shops is in occupation of the shops. The Labourer in the said shop are put to the danger as it is not a commercial functioning trade, the Laboures are alone doing the Coil winding and printing in the said 2nd floor shops. No public can even imagine claiming to the 2nd floor as the stair leading to the 2nd floor is in whithered condition. Almost in the 1st floor also 10 number of shops are kept closed without any commercial activity.” 5. Mr. K.M.Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel who led the arguments on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the notice issued by the respondents under Section 258 of the Act, does not satisfy the requirements of the said provisions. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that even as per the counter filed by the respondents, as early as in the year 2016 itself, the building was found to be in a dilapidated condition. Thereafter, a resolution is said to have been passed only in the year 2019 and subsequently by virtue of the impugned notice, the respondents have straight away locked and sealed all the shops. The respondents do not satisfy the requirements of Section 258 of the Act since the building stands intact till date and if at all, it is in such a dilapidated condition, by now it should have crumbled. Nothing like that has happened and Section 258 of the Act clearly contemplates a building to be in such a ruinous state which will cause danger to the occupants and to the passers-by. Nothing like that has happened and Section 258 of the Act clearly contemplates a building to be in such a ruinous state which will cause danger to the occupants and to the passers-by. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the very same notice, certain other grounds like non-payment of the rent, conducting business without license, sub-leasing etc., has also been added and that by itself shows that the respondents wanted to get rid of the occupants of the shops through colourable exercise of power. The learned Senior Counsel also questioned the structural stability report submitted by the Anna University on the ground that the report has been given without conducting any scientific test and the finding has been given in the report only based on photographs, which are merely expression of opinion based on what was seen on the spot without conducting any test. In order to substantiate this submission, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon a structural stability report prepared by a private Civil Engineer and pointed out the various testing methods that will have to be adopted before giving an opinion on the structural stability of the building. That apart, the learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the assessment of the structural stability must be done before the notice is given and not after the issuance of the impugned notice. 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Chennai Corporation apart from reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, submitted that the building is in a very dilapidated condition and the same is very clear from the report submitted by the experts from Anna University wherein it has been clearly pointed out that the entire building is not structurally stable and it is imminently dangerous to the inmates of the building. The learned Standing counsel submitted that each floor had 37 shops and almost all shop owners were aware about the dilapidated condition of the building and except for these petitioners, no other person has challenged the impugned notice and almost many shops were not put to use even before it was locked and sealed. 7. The learned Standing Counsel also made a specific submission that the existing structure will be demolished and a new shopping complex will be constructed in the same place and the petitioners and other shop owners will be given priority while allotting the shops. 7. The learned Standing Counsel also made a specific submission that the existing structure will be demolished and a new shopping complex will be constructed in the same place and the petitioners and other shop owners will be given priority while allotting the shops. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the Corporation of Chennai had taken into consideration the public interest and it was not the intention of the Corporation of Chennai to cause hardship to the petitioners and this action was taken in the interest of the petitioners 8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. 9. Before proceeding further to deal with the issues involved in the present case, it will be relevant to take note of some of the interim orders passed by this Court during the pendency of this Writ Petition. 10. The order passed by this Court on 17.02.2020, is extracted hereunder: “The Petitioners in these Writ Petitions have challenged the notice issued by the Third Respondent under Section 258 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, requiring them to vacate from the respective shops occupied by them, on the ground that the building is in dilapidated condition. 2. It has been pointed out by the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents that apart from the impugned notices, the Respondents have also issued notices under Section 379-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 that the Petitioners were carrying on business in those shops without obtaining the requisite licence under that enactment. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners in response to that contention stated that if the shops are de-sealed, the Petitioners would be able to collect required documents from the shops and produce the same to show that they have requisite trade licence and file necessary additional affidavits in support of their contentions. 3. It is today informed by the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents that some of the Petitioners had made written representations and had taken their goods and movable items from their respective shops and the same benefit would be extended to others also, if they make necessary application for the same. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents seeks time to file Counter-Affidavit with supporting documents. Post these matters on 26.02.2020.” 11. The order passed by this Court on 26.02.2020 is extracted hereunder: Heard Mr. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents seeks time to file Counter-Affidavit with supporting documents. Post these matters on 26.02.2020.” 11. The order passed by this Court on 26.02.2020 is extracted hereunder: Heard Mr. K.M. Vijayan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mrs. Karthika Ashok, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties. 2. The Petitioners in these Writ Petitions are occupants in the Shopping Complex at N.S.K. Salai, Chennai - 600 024, belonging to the Corporation of Greater Chennai. They had been served with notices dated 31.01.2020 under Section 258 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) requiring them to vacate from their respective premises on the ground that the building is in dilapidated condition. Since the shops occupied by the respective Petitioners were subsequently sealed on 04.02.2020, these Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the aforesaid notices dated 31.01.2020 3. The primordial attack on the impugned order by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the invocation of powers under Section 258 of the Act, is a colourable exercise for indirectly evicting the Petitioners from the respective premises occupied by them for several decades without following due process of law. In order to buttress the said contention, it is highlighted that there has not been any prior inspection of the building by the Commissioner or an expert in order to be subjectively satisfied that the structure is imminently dangerous to the inmates thereof so as to require immediate evacuation in terms of clause (3) to Section 258 of the Act. The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Manimegalai –vs - Commissioner, Pudukkottai Municipality (Judgment dated 06.12.2018 in W.A. (MD) No. 1631 of 2018) is relied in support of the same. 4. In response to the aforesaid contention, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that there has been prior inspection by the Superintending Engineer (Building), Construction Department, Corporation of Greater Chennai, who is an expert in civil engineering, as could be seen from his report dated 12.08.2016 recommending the demolition of the building, which is in dilapidated condition, so as to construct new building, and as such, the Petitioners cannot dispute the dilapidated condition of the building. 5. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the reading of the aforesaid report dated 12.08.2016 submitted by the Superintending Engineer (Building), Construction Department, Corporation of Greater Chennai, which is an internal communication, would itself show that it is based on a pre-decided intention to demolish the building and that there is nothing to show as to whether any scientific tests had been undertaken on the structural stability of the building before deciding to invoke the powers conferred under Section 258 of the Act. It is further pleaded that in this factual backdrop, the closure of the shops vitally affects the daily livelihood of the Petitioners, and as such, the premises may be immediately de-sealed so that the Petitioners could resume carrying on their business without brooking any further delay. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid rival submissions made, it is beyond any pale of doubt that ensuring public safety is of paramount importance before considering the request of the Petitioners to de-seal the premises for them to resume carrying on their business. At the same time, it also cannot be lost sight of the fact that the building itself belongs to the Corporation of Greater Chennai, and as such, interests of justice require that the structural stability of the entire building has to be tested by an independent authority. Accordingly, the following order is passed:- (i) the Vice Chancellor, Anna University, Chennai is requested to depute 3 experts in civil engineering, preferably from the faculty of that University to forthwith visit the site so as to examine the structural stability of the entire building, and in particular, the portions occupied by the respective Petitioners and file a report with their opinion as to whether that structure is imminently dangerous to the inmates requiring their immediate evacuation; (ii) the experts shall also offer their opinion in that report as to whether it would be feasible to permit each of the Petitioners to resume carrying on their business in their respective shops till legal proceedings for the eviction of the Petitioners from their respective premises attain finality. The sketch plan with photographs shall also be produced; (iii) the Third Respondent shall ensure that prior notice is issued to the respective Petitioners for the inspection of their respective shops; (iv) the Petitioners shall extend their full co-operation for completing the aforesaid exercise in an expeditious manner; (v) the remuneration for inspection by the experts shall be fixed by the Vice-Chancellor, Anna University, Chennai, and the payment for the same shall be made by the First Respondent within three days from the date on which that amount is communicated in writing by him; and (vi) the report of the experts with sketch plan and photographs taken shall be submitted in sealed cover in the Registry by 03.03.2020. Post these matters for further hearing on 04.03.2020.” 12. Pursuant to the above orders, the Vice-Chancellor of the Anna University had deputed three Experts in Structural and Civil Engineering to conduct an inspection and give a report. A detailed report along with the photographs has been filed before this Court. A copy of the same was also furnished to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation of Chennai. For proper appreciation, the Inspection Report of the Committee is extracted hereunder: ‘‘1. INSPECTION REPORT: ‘‘Based on the letter from The Zonal Officer. Zone - X. Greater Chennai Corporation, No. 117. N.S.K Salai. Kodambakkam, Chennai - 600 024 (Lr.No. Z.O.X.C.No.8320/2011 dated 28.02.2020), the inspection committee members have been nominated by The Registrar, Anna University, Chennai - 600 025 (Lr.No. 351/PR10/2020 dated 02.03.2020) to inspect and furnish the structural stability of the shopping complex located at Door No.134, N.S.K Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024. It is understood from the letter that, the Chennai Corporation has constructed a shopping complex in the larger extent of land at Door No. 134. N.S.K Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai-600 024 near Power House in the year 1971 upto ground floor (facing N.S.K. Salai) and in the year 1985 the said shopping complex was expanded by constructing shops in the first and second floor. A detailed investigation has been carried out by the inspection committee to assess the structural stability of the shopping complex. The inspection committee conducted a preliminary inspection of the above mentioned shopping complex on 05.03.2020. Subsequently, the committee conducted a detailed inspection of the entire building of the said shopping complex on 11.03.2020 and 17.03.2020. A detailed investigation has been carried out by the inspection committee to assess the structural stability of the shopping complex. The inspection committee conducted a preliminary inspection of the above mentioned shopping complex on 05.03.2020. Subsequently, the committee conducted a detailed inspection of the entire building of the said shopping complex on 11.03.2020 and 17.03.2020. Based on the inspection the following observations are presented below. 1. The building was constructed as load bearing structure which consists of G + 2 Storey with brick masonry for the walls and piers and Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) for supporting beams and slabs. 2. No foundation settlements are noticed in the entire building. 3. All the staircases, access ways and toilets of the building are severely damaged due to heavy corrosion of reinforcement and spalling of cover concrete. 4. In the second floor, most part of the roof slabs, corridor slabs and sunshade slabs and supporting beams between piers are damaged due to heavy corrosion of reinforcement. Hence, it is not in a state of repairable condition and dangerous to use. 5. In the first floor, corridor slabs, sunshade slabs facing N.S.K Salai and Dr. Ambedkar Salai and supporting beams between piers are heavily corroded, cover concrete is spalled and reinforcements are exposed. Further, some sunshades are completely broken and most of the sunshade slabs show extensive deflection and are in the state of impending failure. 6. In the ground floor, the cover concrete of roof slab in TUCS shop near shop No. 26 has completely fallen, and the reinforcements are severely corroded and exposed. Most of the front sunshade slabs facing NSK Salai and Dr Ambedkar Salai in the ground floor are cracked due to corrosion and in few places spelling of concrete is noticed. 7. Even though the various shops in the ground floor are in serviceable condition, there is a high probability of spelling of concrete from the first floor and second floor distressed sunshade slabs and beams, Since, in most part of the building the cover concrete has fallen and the reinforcements are severely corroded; it is suspected that, in case of any earthquake or any other vibration induced disturbances on or near the building will lead to catastrophic failure of the entire building. Based on the above said structural condition of the building, the committee opines that i. The entire building is not structurally stable and considering the safety of the occupants in the building, passer-by and general public, it is not suitable for functioning. Hence, the super structure of the building is imminently dangerous to the inmates requiring immediate evacuation. ii. Even though the respective shops of the petitioners seem to be in serviceable condition, it is not feasible to permit the each of the petitioners to resume carrying on their business considering the extensive distress in the structural members directly above the shops and the overall instability of the building. Note: 1. The details of the observations with photographs are presented herewith as Annexure kind reference. In addition to this, the details of the petitioners shop and floor plans obtained from the Greater Chennai Corporation are also enclosed in the same Annexure. 2. A Digital Versatile Disk (DVD) containing the photographs given in the annexure to have a better view by zooming the same and some videos taken at the premises is provided for reference,” 13. In the present case, the impugned notice was issued under Section 258 of the Act by the Corporation of Chennai mainly on the ground that the building is in a very dilapidated condition and it will not be safe to continue the occupancy in the building. Unfortunately, this was a building constructed in the year 1985 and within 30 years, this has reached this state. Section 258 of the Act provides for the precaution to be taken in case of a dangerous structure which will not be safe for occupation and it will also cause danger to the passers-by. Section 258(2) of the Act specifically provides for an immediate action if necessary, even before issuing a notice. In a case where the structure is imminently dangerous, the Commissioner is entitled to order for immediate evacuation taking into account the interest of the occupants. This was the power that was exercised in the present case. 14. Even though the provision specifically mentions that the Commissioner will have to take such an action, there is nothing wrong when the Commissioner takes the services of his officials to carry out the operation. In the present case, the Zonal Officer has acted upon the instruction of the Commissioner. 14. Even though the provision specifically mentions that the Commissioner will have to take such an action, there is nothing wrong when the Commissioner takes the services of his officials to carry out the operation. In the present case, the Zonal Officer has acted upon the instruction of the Commissioner. It is also seen that there was an Inspection Report that was placed before the Council and a resolution was also passed on 19.09.2019 recommending for immediate demolition of the building. 15. The impugned notice issued by the Corporation of Chennai apart from stating the grounds under Section 258 of the Act also includes in the notice certain other grounds like non-payment of rent, carrying on business without license etc. In the considered view of this Court, these grounds need not have been mentioned in the notice. These are independent grounds that require notice to the concerned shop owner calling for his explanation and thereafter taking action in accordance with law. However, by adding these grounds it cannot be held that it will vitiate the very notice itself, where the main thrust of the notice was under Section 258 of the Act. 1. This Court wanted to independently assess the condition of the building and it very clear from the Inspection Report submitted by the experts in structural engineering that the entire building is not structurally stable and it is not safe for both the occupants and passers-by. It is also stated that the structure of the building is imminently dangerous, which requires an immediate evacuation. This report along with the photographs clearly shows that the structure of the building is in a very bad shape and it will not be safe to allow anybody to occupy this building. There is no reason for this Court to question the report given by the experts who are neutral to this issue and there is no requirement for them to give an adverse report against the petitioners. 2. 17. This Court, instead of getting carried away with the procedural wrangles, must focus on the condition of the building based on the report submitted by the Experts belonging to the Anna University. This Court does not want to set aside the notice and allow the petitioners to occupy the building which is stated to be in an imminently dangerous condition and thereby expose the occupants to a potential life threat. This Court does not want to set aside the notice and allow the petitioners to occupy the building which is stated to be in an imminently dangerous condition and thereby expose the occupants to a potential life threat. Protecting the lives of persons is more important than considering the so-called technical objections that have been raised in the course of the arguments. This Court is not inclined to permit any occupancy in the building more particularly, after taking note of the Inspection Report submitted by the independent experts. 18. This Court records the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for Corporation of Chennai, to the effect that the petitioners will be given priority while allotting the shops after a new structure is put up in the existing place. This Court is aware of the fact that the shops that were run by the petitioners was their livelihood and they have been deprived of the same. However, in the name of restoring the livelihood, this Court does not want to expose the petitioners to a life threat. This safeguard given in the present order will take care of the future interest of the petitioners. 19. After the orders were pronounced, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of some of the petitioners that their goods are lying inside the shops and therefore, directions can be given to the respondents to remove the lock and seal in order to enable those petitioners to remove their goods from the shops. 20. Considering the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in whatever shops the goods will have to be removed, the concerned petitioners shall give a representation to the respondents and the respondents shall remove the lock and seal of those shops and keep it open for a period of three days in order to enable those petitioners to remove their goods. The respondents shall specifically inform the date and the time during which the shops will be opened to enable the goods to be removed. After the removal of the goods, the shops shall be again placed under lock and seal. 21. In the result, all these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.