Bombay HC reserves verdict in plea filed by Kangana Ranaut challenging BMC’s demolition of her property

The Bombay High Court today reserved its judgment in the plea filed by Bollywood actress Kangana Ranaut challenging the demolition of her property by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC)..The matter was listed today before the Bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and RI Chagla for filing of written submissions on behalf of all parties in the matter..After the parties confirmed that their written submissions will be filed today itself, the Court wanted to know if there are any more submissions to be made. When the counsel replied in the negative, the Court proceeded to reserve its verdict in the matter..Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf and Advocate Rizwan Siddique appeared for Kangana Ranaut. Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy with Advocate Joel Carlos appeared for BMC. Senior Advocate Anil Sakhare appeared for NC Bhagywant Laate, the impleaded officer of BMC. Advocate Pradeep Thorat appeared for Shiv Sena spokesperson Sanjay Raut..The Court heard the counsel for the parties in the matter over the course of last week. Below are the highlights of the submissions..Saraf began his arguments on September 25 by showing that BMC had flouted statutory provisions and court orders. He added that the municipal body's actions were with malafide intention..He referred to the administrative order of the Court by which all authorities were directed to proceed slowly in terms of actions pertaining to eviction, demolition and dispossession amid the COVID-19 pandemic. .He added that the BMC failed to follow the statutory provisions of the Mumbai Metropolitan Act of giving an opportunity to Kangana to either show her valid permissions for the work being carried out or to regularise her structure by paying the penalty..Saraf added that Kangana was targeted by the BMC officials because she was at loggerheads with a party in the government. .To buttress his claim, he referred to a video where Raut had passed objectionable remarks in response to one of Kangana's tweets..Try to justify an incorrect stand and you get entangled in it: Sr Adv Saraf argues BMC demolition of Kangana Ranaut's property was malafide.Chinoy submitted at the outset that Kangana’s petition was not maintainable under writ jurisdiction, and that she has alternate remedy in suit proceedings..He added that Kangana was not able to bring on record any evidence to show how the treatment of BMC against her was an exceptional circumstance..He further submitted that BMC had no political connections, and that the controversy in this matter was created by Kangana going to the media..Referring to BMC’s affidavit, he claimed that Kangana was carrying out brazen and illegal alterations, and that she has conveniently remained silent on that aspect..During the course of the hearing, the Court had pulled up BMC officials for their sudden interest in the matter of Kangana’s property..[Kangana Ranaut v BMC] We are all proud Maharashtrians, but is this the way to react?: Bombay HC on Sanjay Raut's "Kanoon kya hain" remark.Sakhare replied that Kangana has not been able to prove malice on the part of the BMC official. He pointed out that the burden to prove was higher for Kangana if she wanted to show malice..He also reiterated Chinoy’s argument of approaching the lower court for a suit proceeding, as the BMC officer has been impleaded in his personal capacity.