Narayan Rane moves HC for regularisation of alterations at Juhu bungalow

According to the petition, the architects had recomputed the Floor Space Index (FSI) calculations and filed a fresh application before the BMC for regularisation of the structure

Mumbai Union minister and BJP leader Narayan Rane has approached the Bombay high court (HC) through a company owned by him, seeking directions to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to consider their application for regularisation of the alleged unauthorised extensions to his eight-storey Juhu bungalow.

When the petition came up for hearing before the division bench headed by justice R D Dhanuka on Tuesday, the court sought to know from the BMC on the maintainability of the present petition (HT File)

According to the petition, the architects had recomputed the Floor Space Index (FSI) calculations and filed a fresh application before the BMC for regularisation of the structure in light of various provisions of Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR)-2034. However, as the HC had rejected his petition for similar reliefs on June 23, the civic authority wanted directions from the HC before considering the new application.

When the petition came up for hearing before the division bench headed by justice R D Dhanuka on Tuesday, the court sought to know from the BMC on the maintainability of the present petition and also asked the civic body to clear its stand on the issue and posted the further hearing to July 25.

In March this year, the BMC had issued a notice to the Rane-owned Kaalkaa Real Estates Ltd, asking it to remove alleged unauthorised construction on the premises within 15 days, failing which the civic body said it would demolish those portions and recover the charges from the owners/occupiers.

Rane had approached the HC seeking no coercive action till his application for regularisation was heard and decided. The court had granted him protection and directed the civic body to consider the same. On June 3, the BMC rejected his application. Thereafter, Rane had challenged the rejection but the HC had dismissed the same but extended no coercive action order for six weeks to enable him to approach the Supreme Court.

Advocate Shardul Singh for the firm informed the bench that the architects had filed a new application as per provisions of DCPR 2034 on July 11, wherein the FSI of the entire plot, as was originally factored for granting the first permission to get an occupation certificate, had been calculated. The petition claims that changes proposed in the plans are in the form of computation of the FSI and within the earlier approved footprint of the building.

Singh further submitted that when the architects had followed up with the concerned BMC officials, they were informed that due to the June 23 HC order, the BMC could not hear a new application without an order of the court. The company said that there is no prohibition in law from filing a fresh or renewed application for building permission.

The petition has sought directions to the BMC to consider the new application on merits and not be influenced by previous orders of the court. The petition further sought no coercive action order till the petition was heard.

Senior advocate Anil Sakhare for the BMC submitted that the concerned department was yet to ascertain if a fresh application could be entertained and once a decision was made, the civic body would apply its mind to the application.