However, the judge has granted a one-week stay on the operation of the order to enable the two to move Bombay High Court.

RCC consultant R N Raikar and Architect Arun Ogale had moved the Sessions Court on August 6 immediately after Chief Minister Manohar Joshi made a statement on the floor of the House that all those connected with the building's construction would be arrested. Earlier, Nirmal Nagar police had arrested building's owner Jairam Chawla, who was later released on bail by Sessions Court.

Counsel for Raikar and Ogale, V V Vashi, told the court that his clients had written to the building's owner about the need for urgent repairs in 1995, so they were in no way connected with the collapse. He said they had made it quite clear thatstructural changes, especially those done in the sanitary plumbing lines of some of the flats had weakened the building.

The bail plea pointed out that the building plans were submitted to the Brihanmumbai Muncipal Corporation (BMC) in 1975, and a part commencement certificate for construction up to 50 feet was issued in June the same year. A full construction certificate was issued in October 1981. The application further said that in December 1983, a part occupancy certificate was issued, and a full occupancy certificate was issued in 1984. In January 1986, the building obtained a completion certificate.

But chief public prosecutor D G Paranjpe, arguing on behalf of the state, submitted that this was a clear case of conspiracy involving the builder, the engineer, architect and several BMC officials.

Paranjpe pointed out that the plot where the building was constructed belongs to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and was given to Apex Gas Service, owned by Jairam Chawla, ona 30-year lease for construction of a godown storing gas cylinders and its administrative office and staff quarters. Accordingly, an agreement was signed between MHADA and Apex Gas Service, he informed.

Producing several documents, including recent Supreme Court judgments to support his case, Paranjpe argued that MHADA had refused permission to Chawla for the construction of residential premises and had intimated the BMC in writing on several occasions not to allow the construction of the building. But the builder still went ahead with his plans after obtaining the requisite certificates from the BMC. This only shows that the BMC officials were hand-in-glove with the contractors, he argued.

After hearing both the prosecution and defence at length, Principal Judge Aguiar agreed with the submissions of the prosecution and rejected the anticipatory bail applications.