AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Court : The Corporation submits a report of joint inspection with the Structural Engineer appointed by the private respondent. Let the report submitted by the Corporation be kept on record. The extent of work undertaken at the site in question is also indicated in the said report and the estimated cost, according to them, is nearly Rs.60,000/-. It is further indicated in the said report that the supervision charge of the empanelled Structural Engineer was approximately Rs.27,000/- as reported at the site. Therefore, the total expenditure which has been assessed for the work already done is Rs.86,700/-.
The learned Advocate representing the respondent no.7 prays for an accommodation as the Structural Engineer could not remain present today. The matter was fixed today so that the estimated cost for the work already executed at the site may be brought before the Court.
Since the cost had been assessed at the site in presence of the Structural Engineer, This Court proceeded to hear the parties. There is an apparent resentment on the continuance of the empanelled Structural Engineer appointed by the said respondent. Naturally when the parties are at the loggerhead, any act taken would normally be not acceptable to the other side. Above the aforesaid rival stands of the parties the first and foremost object of the Court is to see that the safety and security of the inmates of the house is maintained. The Court cannot be a mute spectator and invite severe casualty to occur as the rival parties are litigating and fighting for their own cause. It is nobody''s case that the structure does not require immediate attention and sufficient care is required to be taken by effecting repairs thereat.
Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate for the Corporation is directed to communicate the petitioner a name of the empanelled Structural Engineer within a week from date. The petitioner shall complete the work under the supervision of the newly appointed empanelled Structural Engineer and shall pay the remuneration as may be directed by the Corporation. The said empanelled Structural Engineer would intimate the competent authority of the Corporation the progress made on the work undertaken at the said structure on a monthly basis. If any permission or sanction is necessary for executing any work, the said empanelled Structural Engineer would advise and suggest the petitioner who shall act on such basis. It goes without saying that the petitioner shall not make any illegal and unauthorised construction at the premises nor shall impair the value and the stability of the structure and the entire work shall be done under the strict supervision of the Structural Engineer. So far as the sum of Rs.86,700/- is concerned, the petitioner is directed to reimburse the said amount to the respondent no.7 by an account payee cheque in his name within a week from date.
In view of the above, there remains nothing in the applications and the same are hereby disposed of.