JUDGMENT : GS Patel, J. 1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by 25 entities and persons, all of whom occupy various units in a commercial property called the Suryodaya Estate, at Tardeo Road, Mumbai. There are two buildings on the property. The owner of this land and the buildings is the 7th Respondent, Rubberwala & Neo Venture (“R&NV”; “the Owners”), a partnership firm. 2. The dispute is of the familiar kind. It relates to the structural condition of the two buildings. R&NV maintains that both buildings are utterly dilapidated. Both buildings are ground and two floor structures. About the age of the buildings there seems to be no controversy — there is some material to indicate that they are about 100 years old. The Petitioners maintain that the building is not so dilapidated that it needs to be brought down. They say on the strength of a structural report that they have obtained that the building can be repaired. 3. The challenge is to a notice dated 17th March 2022 (Exhibit “G”, pages 65 to 66). This was sent by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”) to the Owners. It followed a notice under Section 353B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act 1888 (“the MMC Act”), dated 26th April 2021. By the Section 353B notice, the MCGM asked the Owners to carry out a structural audit of the two buildings. The impugned notice of 17th March 2022 said that the Owners had submitted a report. So had the occupants (the Petitioners, or some of them). The two reports conflicted. Therefore, the matter was referred to the MCGM’s Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”). The TAC considered both reports, granted a hearing and concluded that the buildings were dilapidated and needed to be pulled down. The buildings were classified as C-1 (dangerous, dilapidated and needing demolition). The MCGM therefore asked the Owners to submit an area statement, and, pending this, to take all necessary precautions to avert a collapse. The Petition also assails the TAC report of 5th January 2022 (Exhibit “F”, pages 59 to 64). 4. We are told that a notice under Section 354 has since been issued. 5. For convenient reference, we reproduce Sections 353B, 354 and 354AB of the MMC Act: 353B. Structural Stability Certificate. The Petition also assails the TAC report of 5th January 2022 (Exhibit “F”, pages 59 to 64). 4. We are told that a notice under Section 354 has since been issued. 5. For convenient reference, we reproduce Sections 353B, 354 and 354AB of the MMC Act: 353B. Structural Stability Certificate. (1) Every owner or occupier of a building in respect of which a period of thirty years, from the date of,— (i) issue of its completion certificate by the Corporation; or (ii) issue of permission to occupy a building under section 353A; or (iii) its physical occupation of at least 50 per cent, of its builtup area, whichever is earlier, has expired, shall cause such building to be examined by a Structural Engineer registered with the Corporation for the purposes of certifying that the building is fit for human habitation (such certificate hereinafter referred to as “the Structural Stability Certificate”). The Structural Stability Certificate issued by such Structural Engineer shall be submitted to the Commissioner. (2) The Structural Stability Certificate shall be submitted within one year from the expiry of a period of thirty years referred to in sub-section (1), and every ten years thereafter or such earlier period as the Commissioner may determine having regard to the condition of the building and the corrective repairs carried out by the owner or occupier. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Commissioner may, at any time, after having recorded the reasons, in writing, direct the owner or occupier of a building, to cause such building to be examined by such Structural Engineer and to submit to the Commissioner, the Structural Stability Certificate, as required under sub-section (1), within the period not exceeding thirty days as specified by the Commissioner, in such direction. (4) If the Structural Engineer recommends any corrective repairs for securing the structural stability of the building, such corrective repairs shall be carried out by the owner or occupier of a building to the satisfaction of the Commissioner. (5) Any owner or occupier, as the case may be, who fails to carry out corrective repairs for securing structural stability, within a period of six months from the date of report of the Structural Engineer, shall be punished with the fine as provided in section 471. (5) Any owner or occupier, as the case may be, who fails to carry out corrective repairs for securing structural stability, within a period of six months from the date of report of the Structural Engineer, shall be punished with the fine as provided in section 471. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the Commissioner may, after giving the owner or occupier, a notice in writing, require him to carry out, within the period specified in the notice, corrective repairs for securing structural stability of a building. If the owner or occupier fails to carry out such corrective repairs within the period specified in the notice, the Commissioner may carry out the same and the expenses incurred by the Commissioner on such repairs shall, on demand if not paid within thirty days, be recovered from the owner or occupier as arrears of property tax. (7) If there is any dispute about the amount of expenses for which demand is made under sub-section (6), an appeal may be preferred to the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, but no such appeal shall be entertained by the said Chief Judge, unless— (i) it is preferred within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of notice of such demand ; (ii) the amount for which demand is made is deposited with the Corporation and a true copy of the receipt showing that the amount has been so deposited accompanies the appeal. (8) In case the appeal is decided in favour of the appellant and the amount of expenses deposited with the Corporation is more than the amount payable by the appellant, the Commissioner shall adjust the excess amount with interest at 6.25 per cent, per annum from the date on which the amount is so deposited by the appellant, towards the property tax payable by the owner in respect of such building thereafter. Dangerous Structures. 354. Removal of structures, etc., which are in ruins or likely to fall. Dangerous Structures. 354. Removal of structures, etc., which are in ruins or likely to fall. (1) If it shall at any time appear to the Commissioner that any structure (including under this expression any building, wall or other structure and anything affixed to or projecting from any building, wall or other structure) is in a ruinous condition, or likely to fall, or in any way dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by such structure or any other structure or place in the neighbourhood thereof, the Commissioner may, by written notice, require the owner or occupier of such structure to pull down, secure or repair such structure subject to the provisions of section 342, of danger therefrom. (2) The Commissioner may also if he thinks fit, require the said owner or occupier, by the said notice, either forthwith or before proceeding to pull down, secure or repair the said structure, to set up a proper and sufficient hoard or fence for the protection of passers by and other persons, with a convenient platform and hand-rail, if there be room enough for the same and the Commissioner shall think the same desirable, to serve as a footway for passengers outside of such hoard or fence. 354AB. Responsibility of owner or occupier to keep and maintain exterior of building in good condition. (1) It shall be the responsibility of every owner or occupier of a building to ensure that the exterior of the building is kept and maintained in good condition and, is not in a state of disrepair or spoiled on account of cracks, stains, shabby enclosures, hanging wires or cables or keeping of unwholesome articles which spoil the appearance of a building or part thereof : Provided that, nothing in this section shall apply to the area declared as slum area under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and the buildings in respect of which the re-development plan in sanctioned by the Competent Authority is or under consideration of the Competent Authority. (2) If, on inspection of such building or a part thereof, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the exterior of any building or a part thereof is not kept and maintained in good condition and spoiled on account of any of the factors mentioned in sub-section (1), the Commissioner may, by notice in writing, require the owner or occupier thereof to carry out necessary work as may be specified in such notice so as to keep and maintain the exterior of a building in good condition; and the owner, or as the case may be, the occupier shall comply with such notice. (3) The owner or occupier of the building shall carry out the work mentioned in the notice issued by the Commissioner under sub-section (2), within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice or such longer period as the Commissioner may, having regard to the nature and the extent of work to be carried out, specify. (4) Where the owner or, as the case may be, the occupier fails to comply with the notice under sub-section (2), the Commissioner may cause the work mentioned in such notice to be executed and the owner or, as the case may be, the occupier shall be liable to pay the expenses incurred by the Commissioner in that behalf within thirty days from the date of the receipt of a demand notice, and if such owner or occupier fails to pay the same, there shall be levied an interest at the rate of two per cent, for each month or part thereof, on the amount of expenses incurred by the Commissioner, till the entire amount of such expenses is paid. (5) Save as otherwise provided in this section, the amount of such expenses together with interest, if any, shall be recoverable as if the amount thereof was due as a property tax. (5) Save as otherwise provided in this section, the amount of such expenses together with interest, if any, shall be recoverable as if the amount thereof was due as a property tax. (6) If there is any dispute about the amount of expenses for which demand is made under sub-section (4), an appeal may be preferred to the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, but no such appeal shall be entertained by the said Chief Judge unless,— (i) it is preferred within twenty-one days from the date of receipt of notice of such demand; (ii) the amount for which demand is made is deposited with the Corporation and a true copy of the receipt showing that the amount has been so deposited accompanies the appeal. (7) In case the appeal is decided in favour of the appellant and the amount of expenses deposited with the Corporation is more than the amount payable by the appellant the Commissioner shall adjust the excess amount with interest at 6.25 per cent, per annum from the date on which the amount is so deposited by the appellant, towards the property tax payable by the owner in respect of such building thereafter. 6. While the Owners had a report dated July 2021 from M/s Just Engineers, the Petitioners obtained a report from Rehab Consultants Private Limited. The Rehab Consultants’ report indicated that while there is some inevitable structural damage, this can be rectified in situ. The Owners’ report from Just Engineers was not shared with the Petitioners. The Petitioners obtained a copy under the RTI Act. 7. The MCGM has established what is called a Technical Advisory Committee (“TAC”). This was set up pursuant to an interim order dated 23th June 2014 in Writ Petition No 1080 of 2015 (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v State of Maharashtra & Ors). The final order in that Writ Petition is of 28th February 2018., 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 816 The interim order of 2014 set out these guidelines: 9. This was set up pursuant to an interim order dated 23th June 2014 in Writ Petition No 1080 of 2015 (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v State of Maharashtra & Ors). The final order in that Writ Petition is of 28th February 2018., 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 816 The interim order of 2014 set out these guidelines: 9. Accordingly, for the present, in the absence of any policy in that behalf, the following guidelines are issued:- a) The present order will be applicable only in respect of those buildings which are highly dilapidated and dangerous and/or classified in Category C-1 by the Corporation, whether owned by a private party or by the Corporation or any other authority and in respect of which building, either a notice under section 354 has been issued or the Corporation has issued a Letter of Evacuation to their tenants and/or occupiers of the buildings. b) The Corporation will, before classifying a building under category C-1, conduct their own independent inspection and assessment with the help of the Engineers of their Department and carry out a survey of such building(s). The report of Structural Audit shall be taken into account. c) The Corporation shall consider the report of Structural Engineer appointed by the owners and/or occupants classifying the building as dilapidated and dangerous. If the owners and/or the occupants bring conflicting reports on the status of the building, the Corporation shall refer the matter to Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) under the Chairmanship of Director (ES & P) with at least 3 other members, viz. City Engineer, Chief Engineer (DP) and Chief Engineer (P & D). d) The TAC shall: i) Carry out a visual inspection of the state of the internal and external plaster, plumbing, drainage, whether the doors and windows close properly, whether steel in columns is exposed, whether there is settlement in the foundation, deflections/sagging, major cracks in columns/beams, seepages/leakages, staircase area and column condition, lift well walls, U.G. tank, O.H. tank column condition, parapet at terraces, chhajas, common areas, terrace water proofing. ii) Carry out specific tests like ultrasonic pulse velocity test, rebound hammer test, half cell potential test, carbonation depth test, core test, chemical analysis, cement aggregate ratio as may be considered by TAC as necessary. ii) Carry out specific tests like ultrasonic pulse velocity test, rebound hammer test, half cell potential test, carbonation depth test, core test, chemical analysis, cement aggregate ratio as may be considered by TAC as necessary. e) If it is found after due notice that the building(s) is in a highly dangerous or in dilapidated condition, then in that event, the Corporation shall also make a list of the names of the tenants and/or occupiers in the said building and the carpet area of the premises in their respective occupation and possession including the floor at which the same has been occupied. f) A copy of such list will be furnished to the landlord and/or owner/builder of the said building. The Corporation thereafter, will issue a notice under section 354 of the said Act calling upon such tenants and/or occupiers to vacate the said premises and if such notice under section 354 of the said Act has already been issued, then in that event the Corporation will give 7 days' notice to such tenants/occupiers, copies whereof will be furnished to the landlord for vacating the said building(s). If such tenant and/or occupier is not available, the Corporation shall affix such notice or Letter of Evacuation on any part of such premises. g) The Corporation shall then take steps to turn off the water, supply, electric power and gas to such building immediately before the removal of occupiers. h) In the case of a municipal owned building(s), the Corporation will issue Letter of Evacuation to every person in occupation of the said building or part thereof to vacate the said building along with their belongings within the said period of 7 days from date of issuance of such notice of Letter of Evacuation in respect of municipal owned building(s). The notice issued to such occupiers shall contain the name of the occupier and the area in his occupation and also the floor at which the premises are located. In case, if such tenant and/or occupier is not available, the Corporation shall affix such notice or Letter of Evacuation on any part of such premises. The notice issued to such occupiers shall contain the name of the occupier and the area in his occupation and also the floor at which the premises are located. In case, if such tenant and/or occupier is not available, the Corporation shall affix such notice or Letter of Evacuation on any part of such premises. i) In the event, a person occupying such tenement whether of the privately owned building(s) or building(s) owned by Corporation or any other authority refuses to vacate the said premises, then the police shall remove such person from the said premises by using nominal force if required for the same. j) The police may use such force as is reasonably necessary to remove such person and/or occupiers and/or allottee along with their belongings from the said premises, without causing damage to their movables. k) The Corporation may then demolish such dangerous and dilapidated building. l) The rights of the tenants and/or occupiers and/or owners in respect of the said premises/property will not be affected by virtue of evacuation or demolition carried out by the Corporation of such dilapidated and dangerous building in exercise of the power under section 354 of the said Act or by virtue of the fact that the Corporation is the owner of the premises. Such tenant and/or occupier and/or owner will be entitled to re-occupy the premises in respect of the same area after the reconstruction of the building, subject to the prevalent provisions of law pertaining to redevelopment of the property or subject to any arrangement or agreement arrived at by and between such tenants and/or occupiers with the owner of the building. Any action of evacuation/removal/demolition will not affect the inter se rights of owners if there be more than one owner or there is a dispute as to the title of the property. m) If there are any pending suits/proceedings and there are any restraint orders passed, the Corporation shall be free to apply for vacating and/or modifying such orders, which applications shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. m) If there are any pending suits/proceedings and there are any restraint orders passed, the Corporation shall be free to apply for vacating and/or modifying such orders, which applications shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. n) In respect of the Municipal buildings, it shall be the duty of the Corporation to provide alternate accommodation as early as possible in any of their premises to such tenant and/or occupier of the Corporation owned building till and until the said building is reconstructed by the Corporation or the tenancy of any of such occupier is determined in accordance with law. o) In respect of the private owned buildings, if such building falls in cessed category as contemplated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, then in that event, it will be the duty of MHADA/MBR & RB to provide temporary alternate arrangement in a transit camp for transit accommodation, in accordance with law, as early as possible. p) In case privately owned buildings are demolished by the Corporation in exercise of power under Section 354 read with the present order, then the Corporation shall, while granting sanction of redevelopment, impose a condition in IOD (Intimation of Disapproval) that no Commencement Certificate will be issued under section 45 of the MRTP Act, 1966 unless and until an Agreement either providing a Permanent Alternate Accommodation in a newly constructed building or a settlement is arrived at by and between the tenants and/or occupiers and the landlord in respect of the said demolished premises, is filed with the Corporation at the earliest. q) In case of buildings which have suddenly collapsed, to determine the reasons for such collapse, it is desirable that forthwith a Committee be constituted headed by a former Municipal Commissioner and consisting of Former Chief Engineer of MHADA along with a Professor of VJTI and a Professor of IIT, Powai having expertise in Structural Engineering as also an employee of the Corporation, holding a post not lower than that of the Director (E.S. & P.) and such Committee will determine the cause of such collapse and inter-alia identify whether any Architect and/or Consultant and/or Municipal officers or other person/s is/are responsible in any manner whatsoever for such a collapse. The reference to the Committee will not in any way be a hindrance in the criminal investigations/proceedings that may have commenced or may be commenced under the relevant criminal law. This no way would restrict the State of Maharashtra to pass appropriate order for any such inquiry or investigation. 8. At the time of final disposal of that Writ Petition in 2018, the Division Bench was told that MCGM had adopted and framed guidelines following this Court’s interim order of 23rd June 2014. No further guidelines were necessary. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of the final order dated 28th February 2018, the Division Bench (AS Oka J., as he then was, and RI Chagla J.) observed: 5. The necessity of passing interim order dated 23rd June 2014 was the absence of a policy or guidelines. That is very clear from the observations made in the paragraph 8 of the said order. In view of the policy guidelines which are placed on record by the affidavit dated 8th February 2018 as modified on 23rd February 2018 now it is no longer necessary for this Court to exercise Writ Jurisdiction by issuing policy guidelines. We may make a useful reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Census Commissioner v. R. Krishnamurthy [ (2015) 2 SCC 796 ]. In paragraph 25 of the said decision, the Apex Court reiterated the well settled legal position that it is not within the domain of the Court to legislate and it is the function of the Courts to interpret the law by adopting certain creative process. In paragraph 25, the Apex Court observed thus:— “25. Interference with the policy decision and issue of a mandamus to frame a policy in a particular manner are absolutely different. The Act has conferred power on the Central Government to issue notification regarding the manner in which the census has to be carried out and the Central Government has issued notifications, and the competent authority has issued directions. It is not within the domain of the court to legislate. The courts do interpret the law and in such interpretation certain creative process is involved. The courts have the jurisdiction to declare the law as unconstitutional. That too, where it is called for. The court may also fill up the gaps in certain spheres applying the doctrine of constitutional silence or abeyance. The courts do interpret the law and in such interpretation certain creative process is involved. The courts have the jurisdiction to declare the law as unconstitutional. That too, where it is called for. The court may also fill up the gaps in certain spheres applying the doctrine of constitutional silence or abeyance. But, the courts are not to plunge into policy-making by adding something to the policy by way of issuing a writ of mandamus. There the judicial restraint is called for remembering what we have stated in the beginning. The courts are required to understand the policy decisions framed by the executive. If a policy decision or a notification is arbitrary, it may invite the frown of Article 14 of the Constitution. But when the notification was not under assail and the same is in consonance with the Act, it is really unfathomable how the High Court could issue directions as to the manner in which a census would be carried out by adding certain aspects. It is, in fact, issuance of a direction for framing a policy in a specific manner.” (Emphasis added) 6. Therefore, in the light of the policy guidelines adopted by the said Corporation, it will not be appropriate for this Court to add to the policy or to amend the said policy especially when this Court is not called upon to decide the legality and validity of the policy 9. Mr Sagar Patil tenders a copy of the final policy guidelines, captioned GUIDELINES FOR DECLARING PRIVATE AND MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS AS C-1 CATEGORY (DANGEROUS, UNSAFE). These are dated 25th May 2018, obviously a little after the final Division Bench judgment. We only note that the reference to the High Court Writ Petition in the final policy of 25th May 2018 is incorrect: It is not WP No.1135 of 2014; it is WP (L) No. 1135 of 2014, finally docketed as Writ Petition No. 1080 of 2015. For convenience, and since the Guidelines are lengthy, instead of quoting them in the body of this judgment, we take the liberty of annexing them in full at the end of this order. 10. That TAC usually has three members, all technically qualified and all drawn from the MCGM. Under the guidelines there are four categories. C-1 is the most dangerous. Category C-2A buildings are those that are partly unsafe. 10. That TAC usually has three members, all technically qualified and all drawn from the MCGM. Under the guidelines there are four categories. C-1 is the most dangerous. Category C-2A buildings are those that are partly unsafe. Category C-2B buildings require major structural repairs without vacating the structure. Category C-3 buildings require only minor repairs. 11. All private buildings older than 30 years or where specific complaints are received about dilapidated conditions invite notice under the MMC Act. A procedure is set out. The guidelines say that a Structural Auditor shall carry out specific tests and then a series of tests are set out. There is a format prescribed for submission of the Structural Audit Reports. The requirement of the guidelines also is that the owner’s Structural Audit Report is to be given to the tenants and occupants and they too must be given an opportunity to present their own Structural Report. 12. One of the specific grounds of challenge here is that the Owners’ structural report was not given to the Petitioners. 13. We turn first to the two reports that are shown to us. The Owners’ report is by Just Engineers. These consultants carried out three or four tests. We do not think there is substance in Mr Jagtiani’s submissions for the Petitioners that every consultant must carry out every single one of the tests. Technically, some tests may not even be feasible if a building is extremely dilapidated. Invasive tests might harm the structure itself. Mr Jagtiani submits that one of the tests, the Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test, indicates that the condition of the building is fair. However, the ultrasonic pulse velocity test indicates that the concrete quality is poor. The ultrasonic concrete thickness test is inconclusive. 14. The Petitioners’ consultant, Rehab Consultants Private Limited, did other tests. The conclusion of the Rehab Consultants report is that the building was stable and fit but required major repairs to prevent further deterioration. According to Rehab Consultants the building was properly classifiable as C-2B and not C-1. 15. The TAC considered both reports. Its report is annexed at Exhibit F, from page 59. There is a tabulated comparison of the two competing reports. It notes that of a total of seven tests, the Owners consultants, Just Engineers, carried out only two. The Petitioners’ consultant carried out only one. 15. The TAC considered both reports. Its report is annexed at Exhibit F, from page 59. There is a tabulated comparison of the two competing reports. It notes that of a total of seven tests, the Owners consultants, Just Engineers, carried out only two. The Petitioners’ consultant carried out only one. We are excluding for now the so-called five optional or additional tests. 16. But the TAC did not simply proceed on the two reports. It did not choose one over the other without further action. Its members made a site visit on 27th December 2021. Representatives of both consultants were present. The TAC noted that there are two buildings called Building 4 and Block 5. Heavy vegetation growth was seen all over Building 4. Some trees had been removed. The original structure was a composite one with load-bearing walls and double-height steel sections. The I-section beams were heavily corroded. The reinforcement and slab were exposed and corroded. The second floor was built by casting RCC column on a beam grid. These RCC columns were in distressed condition. Some of the walls were seen to be tilted at some locations on the first floor. Part of the first floor portion showed a level difference in the slab, prima facie indicating a subsidence of a part of the structure. One steel column was distorted. Information on site indicated that many years ago there was a fire. The building had remained unoccupied for a long time and had not been maintained for even longer. The brick masonry walls on the second floor were seen not to be in plumb alignment. Block No 5, the second structure, also had heavy vegetation. Its internal staircase from ground floor to all upper floors was distressed. The ground floor seemed to be all right. Half of the second floor was in distressed condition and showed heavy leakage. Part of the slab was damaged. It had not been repaired and there were severe leakages. That part of the slab that was supported by wooden rafters was in good condition. On the south-western side, there was an old wooden staircase. It had collapsed and was not in use. There were undulations and holes to the floor on the third floor. 17. The TAC discussed the condition on site with the representatives of both consultants. Their observations and submissions are noted in the TAC report. On the south-western side, there was an old wooden staircase. It had collapsed and was not in use. There were undulations and holes to the floor on the third floor. 17. The TAC discussed the condition on site with the representatives of both consultants. Their observations and submissions are noted in the TAC report. Then the TAC members noted that having gone through both reports, the material submitted by the structural experts, the reports of the ward staff and the observation by the TAC during the site visit, the conclusion to be drawn was that the buildings were indeed dilapidated and distressed and that they might collapse at any time endangering the life of residents. Hence the buildings needed to be demolished and they were categorised as C-1. 18. Mr. Jagtiani’s attack on the report was on the aspect of procedure. Both reports, he submits, were possibly vulnerable, but if one of the reports said that there was a possibility of repairs then that should be preferred. We do not see why this should be so. Surely the question of safety of all — including the Petitioners — would have to receive primacy in any assessment of such competing reports. 19. In Tushar Ranglidas Notaria v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1798 : (2020) 1 Bom CR 559. a Division Bench of which one of us (GS Patel J) was a member considered the legal position in such situations. The SCC OnLine report inaccurately portrays Tushar Notaria as being a single-judge bench decision. It was actually rendered by a Division Bench of SC Dharmadhikari and GS Patel JJ. In paragraphs 3 and 4, the Court said: 3. The conspectus of the petition is almost identical to nearly two dozen petitions we have heard and dealt with in the last two or three months: tenants of a building that is over 30 years old having received an evacuation notice from the MCGM, and having taken no steps by themselves or by compelling the owner to carry out essential structural repairs, then rush to court and claim (a) that the building does not need demolition or evacuation; (b) that it is structurally sound; and (c) that the petitioner-tenants will continue to live there ‘at their own risk’ and will give an ‘undertaking’ to assume all liability, including to third parties. In at least nine separate judgments delivered recently we have set out the law on the subject. We begin this discussion, therefore, by noting these decisions and summarizing the principles in law that apply to such a situation. The decisions are: (a) Mahendra Bhalchandra Shah & Ors v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors, Writ Petition (L) No. 1755 of 2019, decided on 24th June 2019; (b) Inderjit Singh Sethi & Ors v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors, Writ Petition No. 880 of 2018, decided on 9th July 2019; (c) Ramesh Nathubhai Patel & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors, Writ Petition No. 1500 of 2016, decided on 9th July 2019; (d) Kutbi Manzil Tenants Welfare Association v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors, Writ Petition No. 2451 of 2018, decided on 16th July 2019; (e) Sundar R. Gavaskar & Ors v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors, Writ Petition No. 602 of 2019, decided on 29th July 2019; (f) Richard Gasper Mathias & Ors v Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors, Writ Petition No. 2108 of 2018 decided on 1st August 2019. (g) Vivek Shantaram Kokate & Ors v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors, Writ Petition No. 931 of 2019, decided on 19th August 2019. (h) Khalil Ahmed Mohd Ali Hamdulay & Ors v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors, Writ Petition (L) No. 2147 of 2019, decided on 22nd August 2019. (i) Pandurang Vishnu Devrukhar & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Anr, Writ Petition No. 2687 of 2018, decided on 27th August 2019 (pertaining to Municipal tenants). 4. The principles of law culled from these decisions are these: (a) It is never for a Court in exercise of its limited writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to decide whether a particular structure is or is not actually in a ruinous or dilapidated condition: see: Diwanchand Gupta v NM Shah & Ors., AIR 1972 Bom 316 , per KK Desai and GN Vaidya JJ.; Nathubhai Dhulaji v Municipal Corporation, AIR 1959 Bom 332 , YV Dixit & VM Tarkunde, JJ. (b) The rights of tenants/occupants are not harmed by demolition ordered and carried out. (b) The rights of tenants/occupants are not harmed by demolition ordered and carried out. These rights are adequately safeguarded by Section 354(5) of the MMC Act and by the provisions of the governing Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 which fully occupies the field regarding tenancies of built premises in Maharashtra. The Supreme Court decision in Shaha Ratansi Khimji & Sons v Kumbhar Sons Hotel Pvt Ltd & Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 1 now makes it clear that the rights of tenants and occupants are unaffected by the required demolition. (c) Tenants have rights but also remedies to keep their structure in tenantable repair. We have referred extensively to Section 14 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. So far, we have not seen a single case where any tenant or group of tenants has invoked his or their rights under this Section. (d) Section 353B casts an obligation not only on owners but also on occupiers of structures that are more than 30 years old to furnish a structural stability certificate. We have yet to see one so furnished unbidden, or, when demanded, one with anything meaningful in it. (e) A Writ Court exercising jurisdiction will not substitute its own view for that of technically qualified experts. Equally, the Writ Court will not prefer the view of one expert over another. (f) In order to succeed a Petitioner before the Court must be able to show that the impugned action suffers from Wednesbury unreasonableness, Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation, (1948) 1 KB 223 : 1947 (2) All ER 680 i.e., it is so unreasonable that no rational person could, having regard to the fact of the case, ever have reached it. There is no scope in such cases for any larger judicial review or invoking the doctrine of proportionality. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors v Hazarilal, (2008) 3 SCC 273 ; Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v Coimbatore District Cooperative Bank Employees Association & Anr, (2007) 4 SCC 669 . In other words the decision must be shown to be utterly perverse, or in excess of authority or manifestly illegal. (g) It is never sufficient merely to allege mala fides without particulars. While direct evidence may not always be available as proof of mala fides, they must nonetheless be established. In other words the decision must be shown to be utterly perverse, or in excess of authority or manifestly illegal. (g) It is never sufficient merely to allege mala fides without particulars. While direct evidence may not always be available as proof of mala fides, they must nonetheless be established. In the words of the Supreme Court, allegations of mala fides are more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of high order of credibility. Union of India v Ashok Kumar, (2005) 8 SCC 760; Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors v P Chandra Mouli & Anr, (2009) 13 SCC 272 . Courts are slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts, especially when the imputations are grave and they are made against one who holds an office of responsibility in the administration. EP Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 ; Indian Railway Construction Co Ltd v Ajay Kumar, (2003) 4 SCC 579 . Mala fides are the last refuge of a losing litigant. Gulam Mustafa v State of Maharashtra, (1976) 1 SCC 800 . Hence, whenever mala fides are alleged, we will demand proof. In case after case, we are told that the provisions of the MCGM Act are being abused by rapacious landlords in connivance with venal officers of the MCGM to order the demolition of the buildings that are otherwise structurally sound. We have yet to come across any such case. The argument is in generalities. Though it is an argument of mala fides, it is always made without any particulars whatsoever and we are asked simply to conjecture that this must be so. The law in regard to allegations of mala fides is well settled and we will draw no such general conclusion. (h) Further, it is no answer at all, as we have held in Mahendra Bhalchandra Shah, to seek an order of status quo. We have discussed this aspect quite elaborately and have held that no such order can be passed by any Court without specific reference to the actual state of affairs at that moment. In Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr v Praveen Kumar Singh, (2006) 3 SCC 312 , the Supreme Court said it was not proper to order a status quo (there, in respect of premises) without indicating what the status quo was. In Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Anr v Praveen Kumar Singh, (2006) 3 SCC 312 , the Supreme Court said it was not proper to order a status quo (there, in respect of premises) without indicating what the status quo was. There can be no order of status quo against natural elements. It is one in one thing to direct to parties to a contract to maintain the status quo. This may be an order against one person seeking another’s eviction. This has no application whatsoever to a situation where the complaint is about the deterioration day by day of the physical condition of a built structure exposed to the elements. (i) We have also demonstrated in Mahendra Bhalchandra Shah that the entire trend in this Court in the recent past of obtaining undertakings from occupants allowing them to continue in occupation at their own risk is without any basis in law. The MCGM cannot contract out of a statute. An undertaking by a Petitioner to a Court does not absolve the MCGM from its statutory responsibilities or liabilities under that statute. If the undertaking is intended to function as some sort of an indemnity, then we have expressed the gravest doubts about any such undertaking ever being enforceable, let alone when the person who gives the undertaking himself or herself suffers an unfortunate mishap. 20. We cannot, therefore, accept Mr Jagtiani’s submission that the recommendation for repairs must invariably be preferred where there is a conflicting report advising demolition. We do not make bold to say that it should always be the other way around either. Much will depend on an assessment of the TAC report. But a writ court will always bear in mind that it is never assessing the merits of the decision — no writ court is in a position to decide a question of civil engineering or structural stability — but only the decision-making process. 21. It is on this aspect that we believe Mr Jagtiani is on surer footing. He says the Owners’ Consultants’ report (Just Consultants) was never given to the Petitioners, though required by the guidelines. We do not think that an objection such as this is sufficient to invalidate the TAC report. It might have been different had the TAC not cared to make a site visit or to record its own observations. But the procedural infirmity cannot go unaddressed. 22. We do not think that an objection such as this is sufficient to invalidate the TAC report. It might have been different had the TAC not cared to make a site visit or to record its own observations. But the procedural infirmity cannot go unaddressed. 22. There is also at play a larger issue. This is not only about the private rights of the owner or the competing claims made by occupants and tenants. It is difficult to see how the occupants and tenants can hope to dictate to a property owner what should or should not be done with the property in an absolute sense. The rights of the occupants and owners to their premises are fully and sufficiently protected in law under the MMC Act, the Development Control Regulations and also under Rent Control Legislation (as we noted in Tushar Notaria and previous cases). Only because the building is demolished it does not follow that the rights of occupancies or tenancies will be lost. Quite the reverse: the obligations of the owner are well settled in law. It is pointless repeating these again and again. There is, as the TAC noted, an element of public interest or public law because a dangerous building presents a threat to the occupants inside it. But there is an even larger public interest involved, one with which courts are routinely confronted, and that is the possibility of danger caused to others, i.e., outsiders and passers-by and consequent disruptions. We have had any number of instances of such collapses specially in the annual monsoon period. There is always some loss of life. 23. What these concerns require, first and foremost, is a process of transparency. These are not entirely private actions. The MCGM, the planning authority under the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, is fully involved. It has statutory functions and duties. These must be discharged and performed in a completely transparent manner. The right to know has been broadened considerably, and not just under the RTI Act. Modern technology has increasingly been seen as a tool to achieve greater transparency — the ‘sunshine is the best disinfectant’ paradigm. See: See: Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India, (2018) 10 SCC 639 especially paragraphs 106 and 107, per Dr DY Chandrachud J in his separate but concurring opinion (from paragraph 59). Modern technology has increasingly been seen as a tool to achieve greater transparency — the ‘sunshine is the best disinfectant’ paradigm. See: See: Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India, (2018) 10 SCC 639 especially paragraphs 106 and 107, per Dr DY Chandrachud J in his separate but concurring opinion (from paragraph 59). The way the TAC Guidelines are being operated is sometimes less then transparent. This needs to be addressed, most especially today, when it is entirely possible to make publicly available all necessary information. The observations in Swapnil Tripathi were made in the context of the judicial system, but we see no reason why they should not apply equally to municipal matters. 24. Therefore, while we do not think that a TAC report such as this can be invalidated merely because there is a rival report. Once we have rejected the absolutist argument that a report that recommends repairs is always to be preferred, and also found no procedural infirmity, the resultant order must inevitably be of rejection of the Writ Petition. We do not believe there is sufficient merit in the Petition to warrant our interference or that a case has been made out justifying the exercise of our equitable discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. To this, we add one important safeguard, and that is in relation to making available all necessary information. Paragraphs 1.03 to 1.05 of the TAC Guidelines require that the Owners’ Structural Audit Report be communicated to the tenants/occupants ‘by displaying it on the premises visible to all’. This is less than helpful and completely overlooks the advent of modern technology. It also overlooks the fact that some buildings are so weakened that many tenants or occupants have left, their premises being rendered uninhabitable after years of neglect. Similarly, paragraph 1.09 of the Guidelines requires the owners to submit an area statement (of the areas occupied by tenants or occupants). If not done, the MCGM record is to govern, and a copy is to be given to the tenants, the occupiers, and the owners; how this is to be done is not mentioned. Then follow the provisions to have the building vacated. 26. This framework is less than satisfactory. If not done, the MCGM record is to govern, and a copy is to be given to the tenants, the occupiers, and the owners; how this is to be done is not mentioned. Then follow the provisions to have the building vacated. 26. This framework is less than satisfactory. Tenants and occupiers have to struggle to get the information they need to protect their rights, including, importantly, the area/s to which they are entitled, and the area/s currently under occupation. They should also be entitled to know, as part of the TAC Guidelines, since these provide for an extreme action of demolition, of what is proposed to be reconstructed. 27. We are mindful of the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the final judgment dated 28th February 2018 in MCGM v State (in which the interim order of 23rd June 2014 framed the first TAC Guidelines). In particular, we are conscious that we are not to legislate. But where there is a lacuna, a Court will certainly step in. 28. We are compelled to take this approach because Mr Jagtiani expresses an apprehension, with some foundation, that the area statements are not being shared with the occupants. Cross-checking is therefore not easy. In response, we are told on behalf of the MCGM that the Owners are unresponsive. This means that there cannot be a demolition until the area statements are finalised. The Owners cannot seek a demolition without there first being a finalised area statement which is the entitlement of the occupants. We make it clear that it is not sufficient for a building owner to simply rely on a favourable TAC order without doing anything further. Even if that categorisation is as a C-1 category it is not open to the owner to have the building brought down without first finalising the area statements regarding every occupant. This is essential because the legal entitlements of the occupants and tenants depend to a very great extent on the correctness of those area statements. If required, the MCGM may issue a notice to the 7th Respondent Owners that no permission for demolition nor any proposal for redevelopment of the building will be granted until the area statements are finalised. 29. It goes without saying that without finalising the area statement the Petitioners cannot possibly be expected to vacate the premises. If required, the MCGM may issue a notice to the 7th Respondent Owners that no permission for demolition nor any proposal for redevelopment of the building will be granted until the area statements are finalised. 29. It goes without saying that without finalising the area statement the Petitioners cannot possibly be expected to vacate the premises. Equally, essential services such as water and electricity cannot be disconnected. We say this because the purpose of the TAC was never to give the owners/developers an undue or unfair advantage over occupants or tenants. It was simply to ensure the structural stability of buildings in Mumbai. This cannot possibly come at the cost of the interest of the occupants. All occupants do so at their own risk, and we make it clear that those who choose to continue in physical occupation will also be responsible for any third-party injury or loss. 30. The 7th Respondent Owners are put to notice that any delay on their part in compliance with the TAC Guidelines of the MMC Act will result in their being held solely and entirely responsible for all third-party losses, including loss of property as well as loss of life, and that all possible liability, civil and criminal, will be attracted if there is non-compliance or continued non-compliance with MCGM requirements. In particular, we find no tenable reason for the delay in providing the area statements demanded by the MCGM as long ago as 19th March 2022. That area statement is to be given by the Owners, duly certified, to the MCGM within two weeks from today. A copy is to be sent to the advocates for the Petitioners. 31. In the present case, since the Petitioners are represented by Advocates, we direct the MCGM to ensure that area statements and all plans are shared with the advocates for the Petitioners. The Advocates for the Petitioners will be given a time within which to respond to draft area statements prepared by the owners or the MCGM. If there is a discrepancy or disagreement, the MCGM’s records will be taken as final. Further, copies of all submitted plans, sanctioned plans and copies of all approvals will be given to the advocates for the Petitioners, free of cost if in soft copy, and for a prescribed fee if in hard copy. All plans and drawings must be given in secured PDF format. Further, copies of all submitted plans, sanctioned plans and copies of all approvals will be given to the advocates for the Petitioners, free of cost if in soft copy, and for a prescribed fee if in hard copy. All plans and drawings must be given in secured PDF format. Other documents may be in secured PDF or image format. No documents are to be shared in readily editable formats. 32. We also note that there is a concern about what it is that the Owners will seek when submitting development plans and what the MCGM will finally sanction. Specifically, the concern is that these plans will not be shared with the Petitioners and there will be ongoing disputes. 33. We believe these to be valid concerns. 34. To ensure transparency, we also propose to frame a set of recommendations or suggestions — not mandatory directions — with a direction to the MCGM to consider these seriously at the highest level for incorporation either as part of the TAC guidelines or as a supplementary set of guidelines to ensure transparency in all C- 1 category re-development projects. We clarify that we are not issuing guidelines ourselves. 35. Our recommendations and suggestions are as follows: (a) All area statements prepared by the owners should to be sent to the Advocates for the residents/occupants/tenants, where there is an advocate representing those persons. (b) In any case, the owners’ area statements should be uploaded to a suitable section of the MCGM website, searchable by the name of the building, its address, or the name of the owner/s. (c) If the area statement is prepared by the MCGM because the owners do not respond, a draft area statement should be placed at site and also uploaded. The final area statement of the MCGM should consider (with freedom to accept or reject) inputs from the owners as also all tenants/occupants. These inputs should be required by a specified date. All must be clearly put to notice that in the event of any dispute, it is the municipal record alone that will govern. (d) Any plans a building owner submits for reconstruction or re-development of a C-1 Category building should also be (i) made available to the advocate for the petitioners / occupants or tenants, where there is an advocate; and (ii) in any case, should be uploaded to a searchable database on the MCGM website. (d) Any plans a building owner submits for reconstruction or re-development of a C-1 Category building should also be (i) made available to the advocate for the petitioners / occupants or tenants, where there is an advocate; and (ii) in any case, should be uploaded to a searchable database on the MCGM website. A copy of the sanctioned plan/s must be made available in similar fashion. The occupants or tenants or their association should be entitled to obtain a hard copy of these plans on payment of stipulated fees. (e) In all cases where there may not be a litigation the MCGM should devise an appropriate protocol by which such inspection can be availed of by those with direct interest in the project or in the property, such as occupants, tenants etc. (f) No development permission for commencement of reconstruction or re-development should be permitted without such disclosure to those who are directly affected by the proposed development or, at a minimum, the online availability of this information. (g) The MCGM is at liberty to proceed against the developer if the owner continues to be non-responsive. (h) If the occupants/tenants are entitled in law to transit protection, this must be told to and approved by the MCGM. 36. We would expect the MCGM to consider these recommendations and suggestions within three months. Mr Patil assures us that a copy of this order will be placed before the Municipal Commissioner and the highest authorities for their consideration. That is sufficient for the present. 37. We dismiss the petition with these observations. No costs. 38. Liberty to the parties to apply in case of any difficulty.