https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305590 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. en-us Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Dec 2022 18:24:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305590 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305590