Right To Move Freely If Threatened By Fear of Being Killed Will Amount To Violation of Right To Livelihood Under Article 21: Bombay High Court

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice GS Kulkarni and Justice RN Laddha has recently observed that if a person’s right to move freely is threatened by fear of being killed or hurt it would amount to violation of the right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The division bench observed, “We firmly believe that a right of a person to move freely, in places which are not actual construction sites, if are threatened by a fear of being killed or hurt, this would certainly amount to violation of one’s fundamental right to livelihood, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The high court was hearing a writ petition filed by Lokhandwala Co-operative Housing Society Limited seeking directions for safety measures to be adopted in the construction of super high-rise buildings.

The said writ was filed after an incident took place wherein two innocent people had died after a cement block fell from 52nd floor and both of them had lost their lives. The petitioners placed before the court the letter correspondence written to the police authorities with regard to the past incidents which had taken place. The petitioner had contended that their premises were adjoining the vicinity where the incident had taken place. The premise was divided by a compound wall.

It was contended by the petitioner that once the operation of the crane takes place at such a massive height, there are a number of facets that are required to be taken into consideration with regard to the overall safety requirements, so that incidents of such nature do not happen, by objects falling on persons who are on the ground, in the surrounding area.

The counsel for the respondent who was undertaking the construction informed the court that his clients are prepared to adopt all safety norms and strictly adhere to the rules and regulations in undertaking the construction, so that no nuisance thereof is caused to the residents of the petitioner’s building or to the persons in the vicinity or to the third parties who are likely to get affected in the event any object falls from such high-rise construction being undertaken.

The counsel for the MCGM submitted that the corporation is certainly willing to look into all such issues which are immensely in the public interest more so in regard to contemporary constructions.

The division bench observed that it is high time that the MCGM has special attention to the safety requirements,

“We find that constructions of such nature being specialized, seem to be routinely undertaken by use of large cranes hanging/suspended in the air. It is high time that the Municipal Corporation gives special attention to the safety requirements in this regard. The use of cranes is a technique/tool being adopted in undertaking such construction. It is used for carrying materials to different levels of the high-rise construction like lifting of large glass panels, cement blocks and strong concrete materials etc. It is common sight in the city of Mumbai that several high-rise buildings under construction have large suspended cranes” the order read.

The high court while disposing of the writ petition asked municipal corporation to frame guidelines and also urged the Secretary to pay special attention considering the public interest.

“We are certain that in the event, the Municipal Corporation formulates any guidelines and intends to issue appropriate directives, the Urban Development Department of the State Government shall act upon any such proposal of the Municipal Corporation with utmost expediency. Considering the urgency of the issue, we would expect the Secretary, Urban Development Department to pay special attention to such concern of the Corporation considering the larger public interest,” the court said.

Senior Advocate Prateek Seksaria appeared for the petitioner. Senior Advocate Narendra V. Walalwalkar appeared for MCGM and Senior counsel Zal Andhyarujina appeared for the Provenance Land Private Limited.

Case Title: Lokhandwala Residency Towers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr