Updated: September 26, 2020 11:02:56 am
BMC demolished “illegal constructions” at actor Kangana Ranaut’s office on Pali Hill in Mumbai. (Express photo)
The Bombay High Court said Friday that it will examine whether the demolished structures at Kangana Ranaut’s Pali Hill bungalow they were either under construction or had existed before after the actor’s lawyers reported there was no “work in progress” on the premise.
On Friday, a bench in the division of Judge SJ Kathawalla and Judge RI Chagla, which began the hearing on the actor’s statement, asked the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) why it had invoked section 354 (A) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporations Act (MMC), which refers to the issuance of a “work stoppage” notice for a “work in progress”, and not section 351 which prescribes giving sufficient notice and time to an owner to respond to “unauthorized work completed”. The court also asked BMC if it had acted just as quickly in demolishing other unauthorized structures in the city.
Lead attorney Birendra Saraf and attorney Rizwan Siddiquee, who appeared for Ranaut, previously told the court that there was no work in progress on the actor’s Pali Hill bungalow premise who was allegedly detected and inspected by Mukadam and BMC’s executive engineer on the 5th. and September 7. respectively. They told the court that BMC’s action was wrong, arbitrary and that it had “ignored all provisions of the law.”
Kangna Ranaut in Chandigarh amid high security on September 9, 2020 (Express photo: Jasbir Malhi)
Saraf said that the alleged alterations and additions, mentioned in the BMC notice, were completed in 2019 and could be proven with photographs of the rituals performed by the actor at the bungalow in January this year.
BMC, through lead defender Aspi Chinoy and defender Joel Carlos, presented a reply to Kangana’s reply and said that his “new categorical denial” of having carried out illegal alterations was “late” and had not been raised. during the answers above. Chinoy said that while only the demolished toilets were “open to the sky” and exposed to rain, the rest of the demolitions were internal.
The court sought to know from BMC why demolition was not carried out on the ground floor of the premises when there was no work in progress, according to the petitioner. The court sought responses from the civic body on its queries and allegations made by the petitioner and published the additional hearing for September 28. The HC will hear Ranaut’s remaining arguments along with BMC’s response on the same Monday.
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay up to date with the latest headlines
For the latest news from Mumbai, download the Indian Express app.
© The Indian Express (P) Ltd
.
