The court made the comments upon hearing Kangana Ranaut’s guilty plea contesting the demolition of a part of his office.
Mumbai:
The Bombay High Court said on Monday there was something suspicious at the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) in regards to the demolition of alleged illegal buildings, comments that came after hearing a car petition filed by actor Kangana Ranaut.
A bench of judges SJ Kathawalla and RI Chagla said that in Ms. Ranaut’s case, the civic body did not follow its own practice of attaching photos of suspected illegal construction with its work stoppage notices and waiting a few days before bringing in carried out demolitions.
The HC made the comments while listening to the writ petition filed by Ms. Ranaut challenging the demolition of a portion of her Pali Hill office in suburban Bandra by BMC on September 9.
The judges were questioning BMC H District Officer Bhagyawant Late, a defendant in the injunction petition under whose jurisdiction Ms. Ranaut’s property falls.
During questioning, the court noted that in cases of similar illegalities in buildings close to Ms. Ranaut’s, the BMC had waited several days to carry out the demolition.
In addition, in most other cases, he had attached photos of the alleged illegal constructions with his work stoppage notices that served the building owners and, in such cases, he did not usually bring the police for demolition, he said. .
However, in regards to Ms. Ranaut’s case, the BMC did not have digitally dated photographs of the alleged illegalities, and the demolition had been carried out in the presence of a huge police force just 24 hours after the stop. A job notice was delivered to the actor, the bank noted.
The judges noted that in its response, the BMC had claimed to have demolished a similar case of illegality on September 8.
But when the bank asked Mr. Late for photos or records of the demolition, the latter said there were no such photos or documents.
The district official also said that the BMC team had not brought in police for the Sept. 8 demolition.
This upset the bank.
Mr. Sakare, (BMC permanent attorney) here’s something absolutely fishy! No photos for 8.
How come in the system, this demolition is not shown on 8 (September)? It is only when we ask for the file that it is prepared. Is there an answer? He said.
The court also asked why the BMC had brought in a huge police force on September 9 to demolish Ms. Ranaut’s office.
To this, Mr. Late said that Ms. Ranaut’s case was “critical”.
What is the definition of critical cases? In celebrity cases, does it become critical? asked the bank.
Ms. Ranaut’s attorney, Dr. Birendra Saraf, raised questions about BMC’s action at the actor’s office.
Saraf argued that the way the entire BMC team intervened on September 7 by issuing the notice of work stoppage, and subsequently rejecting Ms. Ranaut’s response and carrying out the demolition, the discrepancy in the documents, between Others showed that the action was vitiated by malice.
Saraf pointed out that the demolition was followed by a news item (on September 10) in ‘Saamana’, where Shiv Sena’s leader, Sanjay Raut, is the executive editor, which carried a headline that showed as good news.
Saraf urged the court to ensure that the damage to Ms. Ranaut’s property was assessed by a qualified person and then to decide on fair compensation for it.
In her guilty plea, Ms. Ranaut has requested Rs 2 crore as damages from the BMC and its officials.
Over the course of the day-long hearing, Saraf also played an excerpt from a news interview where Mr. Raut had said that “Ranaut should be taught a lesson.”
The deputy of the Sena is also a defendant in the order petition.
However, Rauts’s lawyer, Pradeep Thorat, argued that throughout the interview, the Sena leader had not referred to Ms Ranaut by name.
If it is your booth that you (in the audio) did not call the petitioner ‘haramkhor’, we will record it. Should we record your statement? ”Said the court, referring to an alleged comment Raut made in the interview.
“Don’t run through the bushes … Have the guts to say (in court) what you have tweeted or said to a news channel, the court told lawyers for Raut and Ranaut.
The BMC, meanwhile, denied all allegations of malice made by Ms. Ranaut.
Lead attorney Aspi Chinoy, who appeared for the BMC, urged the HC to dismiss the guilty plea, or to hear Ms. Ranaut through a lawsuit, and not a writ of writ, saying that in a lawsuit, Ms. Ranaut would have to be on the stand (witness box) and clarify all the facts.
Let this be resolved with a suit. Let her go into a box and let her establish these facts. Alternatively, this is a petition that deserves to be dismissed.
“It lacks absolute frankness. This petition is presented as a person harassed for his public statements against a government and party in power,” Chinoy said.
The reality is something different. This is a case in which the petitioner has illegally made substantial alterations, he said.
Referring to the earlier comment from the courts on the speed shown by the BMC in Ms. Ranaut’s case, Chinoy said: I agree that there is a faster response in this case.
“But that’s not an answer (Ms. Ranaut’s plea). You can’t do illegal construction.
The court will hear Raut’s presentations on Tuesday.
.
