Writ jurisdiction and structural safety: conflicting technical reports could not justify wall removal where municipal findings showed serious danger.

In writ jurisdiction, disputed structural-safety questions should not be decided by comparing conflicting expert reports, especially where municipal notices and technical assessments indicate that a building is old, dangerous and in C-1 category. A later report with acknowledged limitations and without a stability certificate could not justify authorising wall removal. The Court should defer to the competent municipal and technical authorities when the material points to serious structural danger, rather than substitute its own assessment. The High Court's direction permitting wall removal was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, could permit removal of an adjoining wall and rely upon a repair proposal in the face of conflicting structural reports and municipal findings that the building was in a dangerous C-1 category.

Analysis: The municipal record included notices and structural assessments indicating that the premises were old, dangerous and required evacuation, while the Technical Advisory Committee had declared the structures to be in C-1 category. The High Court, however, allowed the tenant to commence wall removal on the basis of a later report that itself contained significant limitations and did not amount to a stability certificate. In writ proceedings, disputed questions of fact concerning structural condition and the relative acceptability of conflicting technical reports are not to be resolved by undertaking a comparative appraisal of expert opinions. Where the material indicates serious structural danger, the Court should not substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority and technical bodies.

Conclusion: The High Court's direction permitting wall removal was unsustainable and was set aside.

---