The Bombay Excessive Court docket on Thursday dismissed a plea by the corporate owned by Union minister and BJP chief Narayan Rane difficult the Brihanmumbai Municipal Company’s (BMC’s) order refusing retention of allegedly unauthorised buildings at his eight-storey Juhu bungalow.
Nonetheless, a division bench of Justice R D Dhanuka and Justice M G Sewlikar prolonged the safety from “coercive motion” on Rane’s bungalow by six weeks to allow Rane’s firm to problem the identical within the Supreme Court docket.
The BMC issued a discover to Kaalkaa Actual Estates Ltd in March this yr, directing it to take away alleged unauthorised building on the premises inside 15 days, failing which the civic physique stated it might demolish these parts and recuperate the costs from the homeowners/occupiers.
The plea acknowledged that the communication was issued within the title of Artline Properties Non-public Restricted. As per the Nationwide Firm Regulation Tribunal’s 2017 order, Artline was amalgamated and merged with petitioner firm Kaalkaa Actual Estates wherein Rane’s household holds shares. As homeowners of the corporate, the Rane household resided within the bungalow. Nonetheless, because the premises was owned by the corporate, the plea was filed by way of it, the petition stated.
The discover was challenged earlier than the excessive court docket, which directed the civic physique to not proceed with any coercive motion until it decides on his regularisation software.
The court docket had stated that if an order handed by BMC is in opposition to or hostile to the petitioner, no coercive steps be taken for 3 weeks from the date of receipt of such an order by the petitioner. The stated reduction continues until June 24.
The BMC rejected the regularisation software on June 3 and because the safety granted by the HC is to run out on June 24, Rane sought an pressing listening to of his plea. A division bench of Justices R D Dhanuka and M G Sewlikar scheduled the following listening to on Thursday.
Rane, in his plea, stated the BMC had rejected his plea stating that plans for the bungalow have been accredited freed from Flooring House Index (FSI) and the identical was not permissible as per the Growth Management Rules (DCR).
Furthermore, Rane had stated one other floor for rejection of his plea was non-receipt of pre-clearance from Maharashtra Coastal Zone Administration Authority (MCZMA) for proposed regularisation of alleged unauthorised work and the identical must have been raised earlier than issuing the rejection order.
The plea sought to quash and put aside the rejection of the appliance and likewise an order to retain the construction. Nonetheless, the BMC lawyer opposed the plea and acknowledged that its order was justified and the identical can’t be put aside.
The bench held that Rane’s plea was “devoid of deserves” and dismissed the identical.