Kangana Ranaut’s bungalow demolition: Did you act in other cases with same speed, HC asks BMC


Kangana Ranaut’s bungalow demolition: Did you act in other cases with same pace, HC asks BMC

The Bombay High Court on Friday requested the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) if it confirmed the “same swiftness” in other cases of unauthorised

development because it confirmed in demolishing components of Kangana Ranaut‘s bungalow.

A bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and R I Chagla was listening to Ranaut’s petition in opposition to the demolition carried out at her Pali Hill bungalow right here by the BMC on September 9.

The Bollywood actor’s lawyer, senior counsel Birendra Saraf, informed the court docket that the BMC gave her simply 24 hours to answer its stop-work discover.
The civic physique began demolition with out giving her sufficient time to reply, he stated, including that it additionally didn’t make any entry about alleged illegalities at Ranaut’s bungalow in its detection report, as is necessary.

The lawyer additionally questioned the “timing of the demolition,” and claimed that Shiv Sena chief Sanjay Raut had stated in an interview to a information channel on September eight that “what is law? we need to teach Kangana a lesson”.

Ranaut had crossed swords with the Sena, which controls the BMC, earlier with her crucial feedback. “Effectively on the same day at 3.30 pm, the BMC
officials reached the bungalow for inspection,” Saraf stated.

On September 9, the order of demolition was handed and pasted on the property’s entrance at 10.34 am, however “the officials of the Corporation along with the requisite machinery were present at the site in full force at 10.19 am,” Saraf stated.

At this the bench requested senior counsel Aspi Chinoy, who appeared for the BMC, if alleged illegalities had been recorded in the detection register.

When the BMC lawyer replied in the affirmative, the bench requested, “We want to know if the demolition has taken place in those cases (other entries in the detection register) with the same swiftness.” Justice Kathawalla then additionally remarked in jest whether or not the demolition occurred “in the way Advocate Pradeep Thorat’s client (Sanjay Raut) wanted”.

On September 9 too, when Ranaut first approached Bombay HC and the court docket stayed the demolition, Justice Kathawalla had questioned the BMC’s speedy motion.

It had stated if the civic physique confirmed the same swiftness in other cases, the town can be a really totally different place. The court docket on Friday requested Ranaut’s lawyer to submit pictures and other materials to point out if the parts demolished by the BMC existed previous to January 2020.

The bench stated it wished to search out out if the demolished half — whether or not authorized or not — was underneath development, or if it had been constructed in the previous.

This is a key level because the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act’s part 354 A empowers the civic physique and its officers to cease any “ongoing” unlawful development.

Ranaut has already acknowledged in her amended petition that she had pictures from a pooja ceremony performed in January 2020 and pictures from Elle Dcor journal challenge of April-May 2020 which present that demolished parts existed again then.

Therefore, the BMC’s allegation that unlawful work was happening was false, her plea stated. Advocate Saraf informed the bench on Friday that when the
civic physique served a demolition discover, just some waterproofing work was happening and she or he had the requisite permissions.

He additionally identified that the pictures of `ongoing work’ submitted in court docket by the BMC on Friday didn’t have any digital time stamp however solely a notice relationship them to September 5.

The court docket requested Chinoy to instruct the BMC officer who took the pictures to submit his telephone to the court docket, in order that it may be ascertained when the pictures have been taken.

The court docket additionally famous that the BMC in its affidavit had stated that Ranaut had modified the place of the doorway of the bottom flooring, however many extra issues on the bottom flooring have been demolished.

“What we are thinking is, how was the ground floor demolished if there is no ongoing work there,” it stated. “Whatever they have alleged in the affidavit regarding the ground floor, is all already done (in the past). So how was the ground floor demolished,” it requested.

The arguments will proceed on Monday. 

Fight against Coronavirus: Full coverage

Source link

About The Author