The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed the petition filed by Union Minister Narayan Rane which challenged the demolition order given over his Adhish bungalow in Juhu, Mumbai.
Union Minister for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Narayan Rane. (PTI photo)
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed the petition filed by Union Minister Narayan Rane’s company which challenged the demolition order over “unauthorised construction” at his Adhish bungalow in Juhu, Mumbai. The order was issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC).
The Bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and MG Sewlikar held that the petition was devoid of merits and there was no question of raising political rivalry since the construction was unauthorised. “There is a serious issue raised on the unauthorised construction and it needs to be considered. In our view the petition is devoid of merits, it is dismissed,” said the bench.
Advocate Milind Sathe appearing for Rane sought extension of the BMC’s order by six weeks so they can approach the Supreme Court when it reopens in July. Since the BMC did not raise any objection, the Court granted the interim protection for six weeks.
ALSO READ | Fresh notice to Narayan Rane for ‘unauthorised works’ on Juhu bungalow
The BMC office had earlier rejected the application filed by Rane’s company for regularisation of the illegal construction in his bungalow. It said that the bungalow’s Floor Space Index (FSI) was more than the permissible limits set.
WHAT DID RANE SAY?
During the court proceeding, Sathe showed a property card which stated that Rane had the ownership of over 1187 square metres of land and hence the Floor Space Index (FSI) of that area was to be considered. Sathe said the Development Control Regulations of 1991 were applicable when he got his plans sanctioned and not of the year 2011.
He contended that the BMC’s action was pre-determined and malicious. “The entire act is totally mala fide and based on a political battle between Narayan Rane and Shiv Sena,” said Sathe. He also requested a scrutiny of the property by an independent architect of the court.
WHAT DID BMC SAY?
On the other hand, Advocate Aspi Chinoy, appearing for the BMC said that Rane had carried out the construction on over 2209 square metres of property and the plan that he submitted for approval was for an area of over 700 square metres.
Chinoy informed the Court that Rane built over three times the area which had been sanctioned for construction and hence it was important for Rane to justify why he ought to be given the benefit of additional FSI.