HC disposes of plea after state withdraws demolition notice issued to Narayan Rane’s Juhu bungalow

The Bombay high court on Tuesday disposed of the petition filed by Union minister Narayan Rane, challenging the March 21 demolition notice issued by the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) authority, after the state government said it was withdrawing the order concerning the Bharatiya Janata Party leader’s Juhu residence

The Bombay high court on Tuesday disposed of the petition filed by Union minister Narayan Rane, challenging the March 21 demolition notice issued by the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) authority, after the state government said it was withdrawing the order concerning the Bharatiya Janata Party leader’s Juhu residence.

Union minister Narayan Rane's bungalow on Juhu Tara Road. HT File Photo

Rane had challenged the notice on the ground that his Juhu bungalow came under the jurisdiction of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and hence, the CRZ rules could not be applied to it.

A division bench of justice A A Sayed and justice Makarand Karnik while hearing the petition by Kaalkaa Real Estate, which is owned by Rane and his family members, was informed by advocate Aagam Doshi that the plea sought quashing of the March 21 communication by the sub-divisional officer, western suburbs, through the district collector.

The communication directed the company, which owns the Juhu property, to demolish the alleged unauthorised construction failing which the officer on his own motion would remove the same at 11 am on March 28. The communication said the officer derived his authority from the Government Resolution (GR) issued on March 23, 2011, which empowered the District Coastal Zone Monitoring Committee (DCZMC) to take suo motu cognisance of CRZ violations.

The company’s petition said under the GR, the DCZMC did not have any statutory powers or could not act as a planning authority but could refer cases to the authorities concerned to take action. “The GR does not apply to matters relating to building permissions and they are regulated only by provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. Therefore, the state’s action was uncalled for.”

The petition further said it was not given a hearing and the order was passed arbitrarily and without jurisdiction and hence, should be quashed and set aside, “The acts of the respondent authorities are clearly violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and its shareholders/beneficial owners enshrined under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution and hence, liable to be set aside. The impugned order is passed in complete contravention of the principles of natural justice.”

On its part, the state through advocate general Ashutosh Kumbhakoni said, “Reserving right to take action, if ‘as and when’ found requisite, albeit is in accordance with law, the March 21 order is hereby withdrawn. All contentions of all the parties to the present proceedings should be expressly kept open for consideration if ‘as and when’ such action is taken.”

In light of the statement, Kumbhakoni said as the cause of action for the petition did not survive, it should be disposed of as infructuous by keeping contentions of the parties expressly open. The bench took the statement on record and disposed of the plea.

The HC had on March 22 granted relief to Rane and directed the BMC not to take any coercive action against him till his application for regularisation pertaining to the alleged illegal construction at his Juhu bungalow was decided. The court had also said that in case of an adverse order against Rane, the BMC should not take coercive steps for three weeks from the date of such an order.