Something fishy going on in BMC over demolitions: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Monday said there was something fishy going on in the 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 RanautA bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and RI Chagla said in Ranauts case the civic body did not follow its own practice of attaching photos of alleged illegal constructions with its stopwork notices and waiting for some days before carrying out demolitionsThe HC made the remarks while hearing the writ petition filed by Ranaut challenging the demolition of a part of her office in Pali Hill in suburban Bandra by the BMC on September 9The judges were questioning the BMCs H Ward officer Bhagyawant Late a respondent in the writ petition under whose jurisdiction Ranauts property fallsDuring the questioning the bench noted that in cases of similar illegalities in buildings close to Ranauts the BMC had waited for several days to carry out the demolitionBesides in most other cases it had attached photos of the alleged illegal constructions with its stopwork notices served to building owners and in such cases it did not often take the police along for demolition it saidHowever when it came to Ranauts case the BMC did not have any photos with digital date and time stamps of the alleged illegalities and the demolition had been carried out in the presence of a huge police force just 24 hours after the stopwork notice was served to the actor the bench notedThe judges noted that in its reply the BMC had claimed to have demolished a similar case of illegality on September 8But when the bench asked Late for photos or records of the demolition the latter said no such photos or documents existedThe ward officer also said the BMC team had not taken the police along for the September 8 demolition This irked the benchSakare BMCs standing counsel here there is something absolutely fishy There are no photos for the 8th How come in the system this demolition is not shown on 8 September It is only when we asked for the file it is prepared Is there any answer it saidThe bench also asked why the BMC had taken a huge police force along on September 9 to demolish Ranauts officeTo this Late said that Ranauts case was a critical oneWhat is the definition of critical cases In cases of celebrities it becomes a critical case the bench askedRanauts counsel Dr Birendra Saraf raised questions over the BMCs action at the actors officeSaraf argued that the manner in which the entire BMC team swooped in on September 7 in issuing the stopwork notice and subsequently rejecting Ranauts reply to it and carrying out the demolition the discrepancy in documents among others showed the action was vitiated by maliceSaraf pointed out that the 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 newsSaraf urged the court to ensure that the damage to Ranauts property was assessed by a qualified person and then to decide on a fair compensation amount for the sameIn her plea Ranaut has sought Rs 2 crore as damages from the BMC and its officialsIn the course of the daylong hearing Saraf also played a clip of a news interview where Raut had said that Ranaut should be taught a lesson The Sena MP is also a respondent in the writ petitionRauts counsel Pradeep Thorat though argued that in the entire interview the Sena leader had not referred to Ranaut by nameIf it is your stand that you in the audio have not called the petitioner a haramkhor we will record it Should we record your statement the court said referring to an alleged comment Raut made in the interviewDont run around the bushes Have guts to say before the court what you have tweeted or told a news channel the court said to both Raut and Ranauts counselsThe BMC meanwhile denied all allegations of malice made by RanautSenior counsel Aspi Chinoy who appeared for the BMC urged the HC to dismiss the plea or to hear Ranaut through a suit and not a writ petition saying that in a suit Ranaut would have to stand in the box witness box and clarify all factsLet this be dealt with in a suit Let her get into a box and let her establish these facts Alternatively this is a petition that deserves to be dismissedIt 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 Chinoy saidThe reality is slightly different This is a case where the petitioner has unlawfully carried out substantial illegal alterations he saidReferring to the courts previous remark on the swiftness shown by the BMC in Ranauts case Chinoy said I agree there is a quicker response in this case But that is not an answer Ranauts plea You cannot carry out illegal constructionThe court will hear Rauts submissions on TuesdayKeep scrolling to read more newsCatch up on all the latest Crime National International and Hatke news here Also download the new midday Android and iOS apps to get latest updates MidDay is now on Telegram Click here to join our channel middayinfomedialtd and stay updated with the latest newsThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever