ORDER 1. The petitioners before this Court have filed this present petition being aggrieved by the orders dated 3.7.2020 and 20.5.2020 passed by the Building Officer, Zone No.1, Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore. 2. The petitioners' contention is that they are permanent resident of a building located at 6/2 Tamboli Bakhal, Indore and the building was purchased by them through a registered sale deed dated 21.7.1961. 3. It has been stated that the house, constructed at 6th Tamboli Bakhal, is in two parts and the petitioners have purchased the northern portion of the house numbered as 6/2. The petitioners are paying regular property taxes and a notice was issued by the Indore Municipal Corporation on 20.5.2020 informing the petitioners that the house in question is in a dangerous state and it is not appropriate for human inhabitation. 4. The petitioners did submit a reply to the notice on 2.6.2020 stating that the building is in two parts and the portion in which they are residing is suitable for human inhabitation. The petitioners made representations also in the matter and the grievance of the petitioners is that without obtaining any report of Structural Engineer and without conducting spot inspection, the impugned order dated 3.7.2020 has been passed. 5. It has further been stated that the Municipal Commissioner has not formed his opinion in respect of the structure in question, it is certainly not in a bad condition, no spot or technical verification was carried out, the order passed by the respondent suffers from violation of principle of natural justice and fair play, and therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, a detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed and the respondents have stated that the house in which the petitioners are residing, which is part of 6th Tambuli Bakhal i.e., 6/2 Tamboli Bakhal, is in dangerous state and unfit for human inhabitation. It has been stated that the entire building is in bad shape and two reports were obtained from Structural Engineer dated 26.5.2020 and 3.7.2020. The Structural Engineer has opined that the structure in question is very old and deteriorated, there are heavy leakages, the steel is heavily rusted and the structure is weak and unsafe for any residential or commercial activities. It has also been observed that the structure is not stable at all for ressidential use. The Structural Engineer has opined that the structure in question is very old and deteriorated, there are heavy leakages, the steel is heavily rusted and the structure is weak and unsafe for any residential or commercial activities. It has also been observed that the structure is not stable at all for ressidential use. The respondents have enclosed the reports along with the return. 7. The respondents have catecorically stated on affidavit that the Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation, keeping in view section 310 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, has formed an opinion and after satisfaction, he has passed the impugned order which has been communicated to the petitioners. The opinion of the Commissioner is based upon the report of the Structural Engineer and in order to avoid any tragedy or loss of human life, the building is being demolished. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 9. The statutory provision governing the field, which is necessary for adjudication of the matter, is contained under section 310 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and the same reads as under:- “310. Removal of buildings in dangerous state.- (1) If, in the opinion of the Commissioner, any building, wall, structure including under this expression any building, wall, parapet, pavement, floor, steps, railings, door or window frames or shutters or roof or other structure and anything affixed to or projecting from or resting on any building, wall, parapet or other structure, or any tree standing thereon is in dangerous state, the Commissioner may by a notice in writing , require the occupier or owner thereof forthwith either to demolish or remove the building, wall, structure or any such tree or cause such repairs to be made there to as he considers necessary for the public safety; and if the danger appears to him to be imminent, he may forthwith take such steps as may be required to avert such danger, including the forcible removal without notice from such building of all the occupiers thereof and their property. (2) Any expenses incurred by the Commissioner under sub-section (1) shall be paid by the owner of the building, wall, structure, or anything affixed thereto. (2) Any expenses incurred by the Commissioner under sub-section (1) shall be paid by the owner of the building, wall, structure, or anything affixed thereto. (3) Except with the permission in writing of the Commissioner no person shall without sufficient cause enter into or remain in any building from which the occupier and his property has been removed under sub-section (1).” The aforesaid statutory provision of law empowers the Commissioner to pass appropriate order after satisfying him and after forming an opinion in respect of demolition of a building which is in dangerous state. 10. The Indore Municipal Corporation has obtained two reports, which are on record, from Structural Engineer and as per the report the building in question is unsafe for residential, commercial or for any other use. The steel is heavily rusted, the structure is very old, deteriorated and the building has been constructed with the combination of steel and wood. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, once there is an expert's report and the opinion has been formed by the Commissioner as stated in the return, the question of interference by this Court doesn't arise. The photographs enclosed along with the return also reflect that the building is in bad shape and it has to be demolished to prevent loss of human life of the resident of the building as well as of persons residing in the neighbouring buildings. The entire building in question is in bad shape whether it is 6/1 or 6/2 they are part of the same building, and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Indore Municipal Corporation. Resultantly, the admission is declined.