MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Friday he said that BMC’s action to wipe out renovations in actor Kangana Ranautbungalow in mumbai Bandra zone, was “illegal and arrogant” and “acted by malafides”.
Setting aside the September 9 demolition order, a court of Judges SJ Kathawalla and Riyaz Chagla said that BMC’s act had caused “substantial harm” to Ranaut and added that she was entitled to compensation from the civic body. To quantify the loss, the HC appointed an appraiser and requested a report by March 9 after hearing from Ranaut and BMC.
The devastation took place after Ranaut lashed out at the MVA government and allegedly “abuse of power” and “bad faith action” by the Shiv Sena-ruled BMC as a “counterattack”, as she “disagreed. with the state their frank comments. ”The HC said:“ It is better to ignore irresponsible statements, however disagreeable. ”However, he said,“ Illegal and colored action by the state or its agencies in front of a citizen, is too serious and harmful to society to be overlooked. ”
Rejecting BMC’s claim that the demolished work was “in progress,” the HC in its 166-page ruling displayed photos and said the work was “pre-existing.”
The HC said civic officials invoked Section 354A of the BMC Act, aimed at illegal construction in progress, with a 24-hour notice, as opposed to Section 351 which offers a seven-day notice, with a purpose. ” more sinister “,” mainly to prevent legal recourse.
“The entire attempt by the BMC and its officers was to somehow present the petitioner (Ranaut) with a fait accompli, leaving her with practically no time to seek redress,” said the court, accepting the assertion of her lawyer Birendra Saraf that the September 7 demolition notice and order were illegal ex facie and deserved to be overturned. “We would be perfectly justified on the basis of the law established by the Supreme Court in the Sunbeam case to order compensation,” he said.
The demolition, the arrangement of which, the HC noted, had begun even before the H / West district officer posted his order at 10.35 am, “was nothing more than legal malice.” In other words, intentional harm without excuse.
The 34-year-old actor had asked HC for an urgent intervention a few hours after a police squad and a civic team landed on his bungalow. The BMC hadn’t even waited for her to arrive in Bombay that day, her lawyer Rizwan Siddiquee said. Ranaut had requested Rs 2 crore as damages, a claim that BMC through its lawyer Aspi Chinoy, Anil Sakhare and lawyer Joel Carlos had qualified as “false”.
Saraf said that BMC’s actions were “lacking in good faith” and had “ulterior motive”, with which the HC agreed.
“An administrative authority must act in good faith and must never act with inappropriate or hidden motives,” said the HC. On September 9, the bank maintained what it observed even then that it was a civic action “that smells of bad faith.” In his final ruling, he disapproved of BMC’s “delaying” tactics that day when the hearing was scheduled for 12:20 pm, to ensure that “40%” of the demolition took place.
.
