Court docket made the remarks whereas listening to Kangana Ranaut’s plea difficult demolition of part of her workplace
Mumbai:
The Bombay Excessive Court docket on Monday mentioned there was one thing fishy occurring within the Brihanmumbai Municipal Company (BMC) when it got here to demolition of alleged unlawful constructions, feedback which got here whereas listening to a writ petition filed by actor Kangana Ranaut.
A bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and RI Chagla mentioned in Ms Ranaut’s case, the civic physique didn’t comply with its personal follow of attaching pictures of alleged unlawful constructions with its stop-work notices and ready for some days earlier than finishing up demolitions.
The HC made the remarks whereas listening to the writ petition filed by Ms Ranaut difficult the demolition of part of her workplace in Pali Hill in suburban Bandra by the BMC on September 9.
The judges had been questioning the BMCs H Ward officer, Bhagyawant Late, a respondent within the writ petition underneath whose jurisdiction Ms Ranaut’s property falls.
Through the questioning, the bench famous that in instances of comparable illegalities in buildings near Ms Ranaut’s, the BMC had waited for a number of days to hold out the demolition.
Moreover, in most different instances, it had hooked up pictures of the alleged unlawful constructions with its stop-work notices served to constructing homeowners, and in such instances, it didn’t usually take the police alongside for demolition, it mentioned.
Nonetheless, when it got here to Ms Ranaut’s case, the BMC didn’t have any pictures with digital date and time stamps of the alleged illegalities, and the demolition had been carried out within the presence of an enormous police power simply 24 hours after the stop-work discover was served to the actor, the bench famous.
The judges famous that in its reply, the BMC had claimed to have demolished the same case of illegality on September eight.
However when the bench requested Mr Late for pictures or data of the demolition, the latter mentioned no such pictures or paperwork existed.
The ward officer additionally mentioned the BMC group had not taken the police alongside for the September eight demolition.
This irked the bench.
Mr Sakare, (BMCs standing counsel) right here there’s something completely fishy! There aren’t any pictures for the eighth.
How come within the system, this demolition will not be proven on eight (September)? It is just after we requested for the file it’s ready. Is there any reply? it mentioned.
The bench additionally requested why the BMC had taken an enormous police power alongside on September 9 to demolish Ms Ranaut’s workplace.
To this Mr Late mentioned that Ms Ranaut’s case was a “essential” one.
What’s the definition of essential instances? In instances of celebrities, it turns into a essential case? the bench requested.
Ms Ranaut’s counsel Dr Birendra Saraf raised questions over the BMC’s motion on the actor’s workplace.
Saraf argued that the way by which the whole BMC group swooped in on September 7 in issuing the stop-work discover, and subsequently rejecting Ms Ranaut’s reply to it and finishing up the demolition, the discrepancy in paperwork, amongst others, confirmed the motion was vitiated by malice.
Saraf identified that the demolition was adopted by a information merchandise (on September 10) in ‘Saamana’, the place Shiv Sena chief Sanjay Raut is govt editor, that carried a headline displaying because it had been some rejoicing information.
Saraf urged the court docket to make sure that the injury to Ms Ranaut’s property was assessed by a certified individual after which to determine on a good compensation quantity for a similar.
In her plea, Ms Ranaut hassought Rs 2 crore as damages from the BMC and its officers.
In the middle of the day-long listening to, Saraf additionally performed a clip of a information interview the place Mr Raut had mentioned that “Ranaut ought to be taught a lesson”.
The Sena MP can also be a respondent within the writ petition.
Mr Rauts counsel Pradeep Thorat, although, argued that in the whole interview, the Sena chief had not referred to Ms Ranaut by identify.
If it’s your stand that, you (within the audio) haven’t referred to as the petitioner a ‘haramkhor’, we are going to file it. Ought to we file your assertion?” the court docket mentioned, referring to an alleged remark Raut made within the interview.
“Do not run across the bushes… Have guts to say (earlier than the court docket) what you’ve gotten tweeted or informed a information channel, the court docket mentioned to each Mr Raut and Ms Ranaut’s counsels.
The BMC, in the meantime, denied all allegations of malice made by Ms Ranaut.
Senior counsel Aspi Chinoy, who appeared for the BMC, urged the HC to dismiss the plea, or to listen to Ms Ranaut by means of a swimsuit, and never a writ petition, saying that in a swimsuit Ms Ranaut must stand within the field (witness field), and make clear all information.
Let this be handled in a swimsuit. Let her get right into a field and let her set up these information. Alternatively, it is a petition that deserves to be dismissed.
“It lacks absolute candour. This petition is being portrayed as a person being harassed due to her public utterances in opposition to a authorities and occasion in energy, Chinoy mentioned.
The truth is barely completely different. This can be a case the place the petitioner has unlawfully carried out substantial unlawful alterations, he mentioned.
Referring to the courts earlier comment on the swiftness proven by the BMC in Ms Ranaut’s case, Chinoy mentioned, I agree there’s a faster response on this case.
“However that’s not a solution (Ms Ranaut’s plea). You can not perform unlawful building.
The court docket will hear Mr Raut’s submissions on Tuesday.
Source link
