Bombay HC slams BMC Rooftop restaurant policy

The Bombay High Court, on Monday, picked loopholes in the Rooftop restaurant policy, which was finalised by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation. It said: "As per several enactments, the terrace is a common amenity area, how can it be used by an owner/ developer or a particular member. It is illegal."

A division bench of Justice RM Borde and Justice Rajesh Ketkar urged the government and the Corporation to wake up and take the example of the Kamala Mills fire, in which 13 people lost their lives, as an opportunity to revisit and correct in future and also have a mechanism to check violations committed by restaurants.

The bench while asking the Corporation to place on record, by Wednesday, its rooftop restaurant policy, said: "As per Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act ( MOFA), Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and Apartment Ownership Acts, if a member is a lessee or tenant, he will have a right to the amenities, and with consent of other members, not be required for letting out the area?" The court made it clear to the civic body that it wants to understand from it the clear 'definition of a rooftop restaurant'. "What is the idea behind this policy," it said. It added that granting licences for eateries, as was given to 1 Above restaurant, where the fire took place, was illegal.

Senior advocate Anil Sakhare, appearing for the Corporation, submitted the report presented by Municipal Commissioner Ajoy Mehta to the Chief Minister and said: "Action against 12 Corporation employees has been initiated. Nobody is being protected."

However, this did not appeal to the bench, which retorted by saying: "These are places where public have access, their safety has to be your utmost concern. There are many fire incidents, which have taken place in the city; this should give you a reason to carry out a comprehensive check of every eatery/ restaurant/ pub in the city."

The court has urged the government and Corporation to have an independent regulating body to monitor the functioning of various departments, which are involved in granting licences for running an eating house or pub. Justice Ketkar said: "Prima facie, we find once licences are issued, there is no monitoring. Renewal of licences becomes merely a paper work exercise and there is no physical checking done."