Bombay HC raps BMC for finishing razing of Kangana Ranaut’s office before its order; hearing today

Observing that the demolition undertaken by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) at the Pali Hill premise of actor Kangana Ranaut on Wednesday morning “did

Observing that the demolition undertaken by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) at the Pali Hill premise of actor Kangana Ranaut on Wednesday morning “did not appear bona fide and smacked of mala fide”, the Bombay high court (HC) ordered the civic commissioner to stop the action in the afternoon. However, by then, BMC had completed the razing. Taking note of it, HC rapped BMC for trying to waste the court’s time by resorting to delay tactics to ensure the demolition work was completed. The civic authorities have been asked to explain their stand and conduct through an affidavit at 3pm on Thursday.

HT Image

A division bench of justice SJ Kathawalla and justice RI Chagla while hearing the petition filed by Ranaut through advocate Rizwan Siddiqui was informed through video conference that the executive engineer of H-West ward had posted a stop work notice on the outer door of the actor’s premise on Tuesday around 10am. Siddiqui submitted that the alleged unauthorized construction pointed out in the notice was false and hence, even though Ranaut was out of Mumbai, a response to the notice was filed on Tuesday itself and submitted to the H-West ward office.

Siddiqui told the court that Ranaut was to arrive on September 9 and had sought seven days to respond to BMC’s stop-work notice. The response, the advocate said, had also called BMC not to misuse its dominant position “to cause prejudice to the petitioner (Ranaut) with any hidden agenda coupled with ulterior motives” as it had given the actor only 24 hours to respond.

The officer informed the bench they had undertaken a survey of the premise and found various unauthorized construction in the premise on September 7. The officer said he had issued a notice under section 35 (A) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act to Ranaut on the same day and had the stop-work notice posted on the outer door of the premise on September 8.

After hearing the submissions the bench held: “We find the above conduct of the MCGM highly deplorable, more so since the MCGM was well aware that a Writ Petition would be filed by the Petitioner before this Court at any time, and an application seeking urgent orders will be moved by the Petitioner, and MCGM had therefore filed a Caveat before this Court. We therefore, informed Senior Advocate Shri Sakhare that such conduct on the part of the MCGM is totally unacceptable to the Court.”

BMC had filed a caveat on September 8 in HC stating that as Ranaut was expected to file a petition, the court should “Let nothing be done unless prior notice is given to the Corporation.”

The bench further observed, “Though the manner in which the MCGM has proceeded to commence demolition work of the said Premises, prima facie does not appear to be bonafide and smacks of malafide, we are giving an opportunity to the MCGM to explain its stand / conduct on Affidavit by 3pm tomorrow.”