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

The Bombay High Court today began hearing Kangana Ranaut's arguments in the writ petition challenging the demolition of her property by the BMC on grounds of allegedly having carried out illegal alterations..Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf, Counsel for Kangana Ranaut began his arguments before the Bench comprising of Justices SJ Kathawalla and RI Chagla this afternoon. .Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy appeared for the BMC..Saraf stated broadly that he would argue on the following issues:That the statutory provisions and the guidelines were flouted by the BMC officials maliciously;Every action of the BMC officials was with malafide intention and;How the BMC has tried to improve their case with each affidavit..It was also re-asserted that the demolition was linked to Ranaut's differences with the ruling Shiv Sena regime in Maharashtra. Saraf told the Court, ."It has been established that I (Kangana Ranaut) had a difference in opinion from the people in power. I had a difference in ideologies, which I will continue to express...September 5, 2020, Kangana Ranaut makes a statement on the manner in which the Mumbai Police was functioning... In retaliation, Sanjay Raut (Shiv Sena’s spokesperson) threatened the petitioner in a derogatory manner on a news channel called News Nation... ... in that interview, it is asked, 'are you likely to take the law in your hands?' Raut said, 'What is law?'... and that we need to teach the petitioner a lesson.".Bombay HC allows impleadment of Shiv Sena spokesperson Sanjay Raut in Kangana Ranaut plea against BMC demolition .Recounting the sequence of events surrounding the demolition, Saraf stated that all demolition machinery was stationed outside her house, even before the final demolition notice was posted. In fact, the demolition of her property continued till the September 10 stay order of the Bombay High Court was shown to the officials present during demolition, he pointed out..Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Kangana’s Advocate on Record, pointed out that he had informed the BMC officials that the filed petition was subjudice and listed for hearing. However, Siddique submitted that he was locked outside the bungalow and that the BMC officials refused to wait..Manner in which demolition was started prima facie smacks of malafide: Bombay HC while granting Kangana Ranaut relief in plea against BMC.Saraf began his arguments by chronologically listing out the events from the date on which Kangana purchased the bungalow till the date on which the BMC proceeded to demolish it. He argued that at every stage Kangana appointed consultants and advisors..Saraf further contended that there were factual discrepancies and procedural errors in the notices and reports sent to Kangana by the BMC. .Regarding the notice procedure the Court mused that “If an unauthorised structure may have been constructed; then after a year, if it is painted, we don’t think the officers can exercise Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.”.Saraf agreed and said that a notice under Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act would have given Kangana an opportunity to rectify any illegality which she may otherwise not have been aware of. .“Not everyone can read the Development Control Regulations (DCR) in one day” he remarked..Had MCGM given me a fair opportunity, I would have been able to respond to their allegations: Kangana Ranaut files rejoinder in Bombay HC.Saraf proceeded to show how some work was legally carried out with due permissions from the BMC..The Bench said that they wanted clarity on the aspect of whether the work on the site was already done or ongoing..Saraf referred to various photographs submitted by Kangana and the BMC to compare and show what the structure looked like before they proceeded to demolish it. He even referred to a magazine which had featured Kangana’s house for its interiors in January this year..The Bench today demanded to know the device from which the photos in BMC’s Affidavit were taken. When Chinoy pointed out a BMC officer had taken with his personal mobile phone, the Court asked for the phone so that they can verify his submission..Saraf then argued on the evidence placed on record by BMC through their Affidavits. He stated that with each reply filed by BMC they are only trying to improve their case..He submitted that the first affidavit filed by the municipal body did not give any details on any tools or machinery or material that could have been used to carry out the alleged illegal construction. In subsequent affidavits, more and more details were added, he said.."(With) Every affidavit they have tried to improve their case but failed. First, it's 'workmen', then it is 'workmen and plywood'... It is just improving their case every day", Saraf submitted..He pointed out that their Affidavit failed to place on record important facts like the details of the inspections carried out, the officials involved and the persons who came on the property to finally to demolish it..The Bench at this point asked Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy to get instructions from the BMC officers on the questions raised. "Ask the officer yourself instead of us asking him", the Bench said..Disputing the BMC's stance that there were six workers found on Ranaut's property (whereas Ranaut maintains that there was only one worker carrying out water proofing works), Saraf contended that every other person spotted in a photograph is being passed off as a worker. Referring to the photograph in question, Saraf remarked, ."Do these even look like workers? Are they carrying out any work of any nature? ... There is a person cleaning something on the ground. He is shown as a worker... when he is looking at his mobile. This is the kind of extent they go to justify... ".He added,.“You take an incorrect stand and you try to justify, the more and more you get entangled in it.”Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf, arguing for Kangana Ranaut.Saraf summed up his arguments for the day stating that BMC's Affidavit did not answer any question put forth in the Petition. .Saraf added that the BMC had not included any property sketches that were up to scale, or entered the details of the property in the "detection register" when the alleged illegality was stated to have been detected on Ranaut's property back on September 5..This was required as per circulars issued on the procedure to be followed before demolishing illegal structures, Saraf said. ."The idea is, you should not have a controversy later on. If you have the material, keep it so you can produce it before a court of law", he submitted..Before concluding the hearing of the matter, the Court asked Chinoy to provide them clarity on certain entries made in the ‘detection registry’. .The Bench demanded some details on the action taken by BMC in respect of specific entries in the register, which they found similar to Kangana’s case..The Bench thereafter adjourned the hearing in the matter to Monday, September 28 at 11 am.