Bombay High Court

Ashok Kumar Jatansingh MehtaversusState of Maharashtra

Decided: 1 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that a prima facie case exists against the applicant and therefore rejected the revision application.

Summary

The applicant, a licensee occupying a ground‑floor godown in the Babu Genu Market building, was accused of constructing an unauthorized mezzanine loft and storing heavy goods, alleged to have contributed to the building's collapse on 27 September 2013 that killed 61 people. The applicant sought discharge, arguing that the building was already dilapidated, that a structural audit had identified defects, and that no notice under the Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 or the MRTP Act, 1966 was served. The prosecution countered that BMC officials had observed the loft, issued notices to remove it, and that the expert report by Dr. B.K. Rao cited the unauthorized alteration as a cause of collapse. The High Court examined the evidence, noted the existence of notices and the expert opinion, and concluded that a prima facie case against the applicant existed. Consequently, the court rejected the revision application and upheld the lower court's order.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant's alleged construction of an unauthorized mezzanine loft and storage of heavy goods constitutes a prima facie case of culpable homicide or other offences.
Whether notices under Section 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 or Section 53 of the MRTP Act, 1966 were required and properly served.
Whether the structural audit report and the expert report by Dr. B.K. Rao negate the allegation of the applicant's liability.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act — s. 53
Municipal Corporation Act — s. 351

Subjects

building collapse
unauthorised construction
structural audit
municipal corporation
criminal liability
discharge application
revision

Judgment

3-REVN-154-2025 (CR).doc

S.S.Kilaje

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 154 OF 2025

Ashok Kumar Jatansingh Mehta ...Applicant
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra ...Respondent

_________________________________________________________________

Digitally
signed by
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Rahul Arote, Mr. Chinmay
SONALI SONALI

SATISH
SATISH
KILAJE
Date:
Godse, Ms. Gauri Jadhav, Ms. Gauri Konde-Deshmukh and Mr. Nagraj
KILAJE 2026.09.09
17:40:20
+0530 Tarade, for the Applicant.

Mr. S.R.Agarkar, APP for the Respondent-State.

PSI- Shelke, Sewree Police Station, Mumbai.
_________________________________________________________________

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C. :

1. The challenge in this application is to the rejection of discharge

application filed by the applicant is rejected.

2. It is prosecution’s case that the four-storeyed BMC building

namely Babu Genu Market situated at Dockyard, Mazgaon, Mumbai

collapsed on 27.09.2013 at around 6 pm, in which 61 inmates lost their

lives, several suffered grievous injuries. At the time of incident, a godown

admeasuring 4500 sq.ft. on the ground floor of the said building was

occupied by present applicant as a licensee. It is alleged that applicant

unauthorisedly by constructed a mezzanine loft in the said leased premises,

Page 1 of 6
3-REVN-154-2025 (CR).doc

S.S.Kilaje

he stored heavy materials on ground floor which contributed to the

collapse of the said building.

3. It is contention of learned Senior counsel for the applicant that

the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The building was in

a dilapidated condition and there were reports of the BMC officials about

the urgent repairs of the said building, but no repairs were carried out. He

further submitted that out of 11 accused persons, 10 accused persons have

been discharged by the learned Sessions Court. Learned Senior counsel

further submitted that prior to the collapse of the said building, structural

audit report was prepared by the M/s. Pentacle Consultants India Pvt. Ltd.

and the said consultant was appointed by BMC on 06.10.2012 to conduct a

structural audit of the said building. The said report was commissioned

and prepared approximately 10 months before the unfortunate incident

and the said report was commissioned and concluded during the

applicant’s use and occupation of the godown in the said building and the

irregularities, if any, would have been observed, recorded and reported in

the said Structural Audit Report. Learned Senior counsel further submitted

that M/s. Pentacle Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. carried out a detailed

inspection of the said building and also conducted Non-Destructive Testing

(NDT Test) and submitted a report containing an opinion regarding repair

and strengthening of RCC columns, beam, sajja, etc. Learned Senior

Page 2 of 6
3-REVN-154-2025 (CR).doc

S.S.Kilaje

counsel further submitted that in the said report, it is not mentioned about

any alteration and structural change was made by the applicant. There is

no whisper of the mezzanine floor erected by the applicant on the ground

floor. In the said report, it is advised to undertake immediate and urgent

structural repairs. There was no action taken on the basis of report of M/s.

Pentacle Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. by the BMC or its officials. Learned

counsel further submitted that the said building was declared C-2B

(Structure requiring major structural repair) by the BMC. Learned counsel

further submitted that thereafter several letters were issued by the

Assistant Commissioner, BMC which shows that the building was in

dilapidated condition, but no steps were taken to repair the said building.

Learned counsel further submitted that the statement of Mr. Sagir Ahmed

Shabir Ahmed Asari, Shopkeeper demonstrates that in the year 1986 there

were 30 shops on the ground floor, in which there were egg shop, chicken

shop, beef and mutton shop and the walls dividing the shops from the

ground to the ceiling were removed by the BMC and the area was

converted into one shop of 4500 sq.ft. and the same was auctioned.

Learned counsel further submitted that the BMC issued a notice dated

29.01.2011 which was replied by the applicant and thereafter BMC

renewed the applicant’s licence for the use and occupation of the said

godown and continued to occupy the said building upto March-2014. No

Page 3 of 6
3-REVN-154-2025 (CR).doc

S.S.Kilaje

show cause notice under Section 351 of MMC Act, 1888 or any notice

under Section 53 of MRTP Act, 1966 was issued to the applicant. Learned

counsel further submitted that the applicant had constructed a temporary

loft using wooden bamboos and the load of the same was borne by the

ground and not to the building. Therefore, the question of applicant’s loft

causing the collapse of the building does not arise. It is only to make the

applicant a scapegoat without any concrete material on record. However,

these facts are not considered by the learned Sessions Judge and has

passed impugned order, which is erroneous. There is no case at all against

the applicant and requested to allow the application.

4. It is contention of learned APP that the applicant was occupying

the ground floor of the said building. He constructed the mezzanine loft

on the ground floor without BMC’s permission. Despite service of notice,

the applicant failed to take steps of remove the mezzanine loft. The

applicant stored large amount of goods on the ground floor. Because of

the act of the applicant, the said building collapsed. The learned Sessions

Judge has passed well-reasoned order, no interference is required in it and

requested to reject the application.

5. I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused impugned order

and the documents produced on record. Admittedly, at the time of the

incident, the applicant was occupying the ground floor of the said building.

Page 4 of 6
3-REVN-154-2025 (CR).doc

S.S.Kilaje

It is alleged that the applicant had erected a mezzanine floor on the

ground floor and stored heavy goods there and it was one of the reason for

the collapse of the said building. In the year 2011, BMC officials visited

the said building and they noticed the alleged mezzanine loft being

constructed by the applicant. Consequently, notices dated 29.01.2011.

08.02.2011 and 21.07.2011 were issued to the applicant to remove the

said mezzanine loft. It is contention of learned Senior counsel for the

applicant that no notice under the provisions of MMC Act, 1988 or MRTP

Act, 1966 was given to the applicant and after issuance of the said notices,

the licence of the applicant was renewed on 01.04.2012. In my view, the

notices issued to the applicant for removal of the alleged loft indicates that

the unauthorised structure was erected on the ground floor. The

subsequent renewal of the license of the applicant after receiving the

notice is a separate matter. It is important to note that after the collapse of

the said building, B. K. Rao (Chief Scientist and Advisor), CBRI was

appointed to submit the report in respect of the collapse of the said

building and Dr. B.K.Rao inspected the site and, after inspection, he

submitted a report. In the said report, one of the reasons given for collapse

of the building was unauthorised alteration on the ground floor. It is

alleged that the applicant had erected unauthorised mezzanine loft stored

heavy materials on the ground floor. It prima facie indicates the

Page 5 of 6
3-REVN-154-2025 (CR).doc

S.S.Kilaje

involvement of the applicant in the crime. It is settled principle of law that

the accused can be discharged from the case, when there is no case at all

against him. However, in the present case, around 61 people have lost

their lives. The BMC officials have been discharged as no sanction was

granted against them. It prima facie shows the apathy of the then

Commissioner of BMC. The Chief Secretary of State Government shall

initiate an enquiry against the then BMC Commissioner for not according

sanction against the errant BMC officials who are allegedly responsible for

the said incident and decide the further course of action against him. As

there is prima facie case against the applicant, I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The Revision Application is rejected.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Page 6 of 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…