Kangana Ranaut Vs Sena: "Something fishy" going on in BMC over demolitions, says HC

Bombay High Court on Monday said re was something fishy going on in Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) when it came to demolition of alleged illegal constructions, comments which came while hearing a writ petition filed by actor Kangana Ranaut. A bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and RI Chagla said in Ranaut's case, civic body did t follow its own practice of attaching photos of alleged illegal constructions with its stop-work tices and waiting for some days before carrying out demolitions.

HC made remarks while hearing writ petition filed by Ranaut challenging demolition of a part of her bungalow in Pali Hill in suburban Bandra by BMC on September 9. judges were questioning BMCs H Ward officer, Bhagyawant Late, a respondent in writ petition under whose jurisdiction Ranaut's property falls.

During questioning, bench ted that in cases of similar illegalities in buildings close to Ranauts, BMC had waited for several days to carry out demolition. Besides, in most or cases, it had attached photos of alleged illegal constructions with its stop-work tices served to building owners, and in such cases, it did t often take police along for demolition, it said.

However, when it came to Ranauts case, BMC did t have any photos with digital date and time stamps of alleged illegalities, and demolition had been carried out in presence of a huge police force just 24 hours after stop-work tice was served to actor, bench ted. judges ted that in its reply, BMC had claimed to have demolished a similar case of illegality on September 8.

But when bench asked Late for photos or records of demolition, latter said such photos or documents existed. ward officer also said BMC team had t taken police along for September 8 demolition. This irked bench.

Mr Sakare, (BMCs standing counsel)  sais "re is something absolutely fishy! re are photos for 8th. How come in system, this demolition is t shown on 8 (September)? It is only when we asked for file it is prepared. Is re any answer?" it said. bench also asked why BMC had taken a huge police force along on September 9 to demolish Ranauts bungalow.

To this Late said that Ranauts case was a "critical" one. "What is definition of critical cases? In cases of celebrities it becomes a critical case?", bench asked. Ranauts counsel Dr Birendra Saraf raised questions over BMC's action at actor's bungalow.

Saraf argued that manner in which entire BMC team swooped in on September 7 in issuing stop-work tice, and subsequently rejecting Ranauts reply to it and carrying out demolition, discrepancy in documents, among ors, showed action was vitiated by malice. Saraf pointed out that demolition was followed by a news item (on September 10) in 'Saamana', where Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut is executive editor, that carried a headline showing as it were some rejoicing news.

Saraf urged court to ensure that dam to Ranauts property was assessed by a qualified person and n to decide on a fair compensation amount for same.

In her plea, Ranaut hassought Rs 2 crore as dams from BMC and its officials. In course of day-long hearing, Saraf also played a clip of a news interview where Raut had said that "Ranaut should be taught a lesson".

Sena MP is also a respondent in writ petition. Rauts counsel Pradeep Thorat, though, argued that in entire interview, Sena leader had t referred to Ranaut by name. If it is your stand that, you (in audio) have t called petitioner a 'haramkhor', we will record it. Should we record your statement?" court said, referring to an alleged comment Raut made in interview. "Don't run around bushes... Have guts to say (before court) what you have tweeted or told a news channel, court said to both Raut and Ranauts counsels.

BMC, meanwhile, denied all allegations of malice made by Ranaut. Senior counsel Aspi Chiy, who appeared for BMC, urged HC to dismiss plea, or to hear Ranaut through a suit, and t a writ petition, saying that in a suit Ranaut would have to stand in box (witness box), and clarify all facts.

Let this be dealt with in a suit. Let her get into a box and let her establish se facts. Alternatively, this is a petition that deserves to be dismissed.

"It lacks absolute candour. This petition is being portrayed as an individual being harassed because of her public utterances against a government and party in power, Chiy said. reality is slightly different. This is a case where petitioner has unlawfully carried out substantial illegal alterations, he said.

Referring to courts previous remark on swiftness shown by BMC in Ranauts case, Chiy said, I agree re is a quicker response in this case. "But that is t an answer (Ranauts plea). You cant carry out illegal construction.

court will hear Rauts submissions on Tuesday.

Kangana Ranaut wishes 'glorious Karma Yogi', Lata Mangeshkar for her 91st birthday

Bombay HC pulls up Sanjay Raut's defense for verbal abuse against Kangana Ranaut