Home » BMC demolition of Kangana residence unlawful, malafide: HC | India News

BMC demolition of Kangana residence unlawful, malafide: HC | India News

by newsking24

MUMBAI: The Bombay excessive courtroom on Friday held that the BMC’s motion of razing renovations in actor Kangana Ranaut’s bungalow in Mumbai’s Bandra space, was “illegal and high-handed” and “actuated by malafides”.
Setting apart the September 9 demolition order, a bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and Riyaz Chagla mentioned BMC’s act had triggered “substantial injury” to Ranaut and added she was entitled to compensation from the civic physique. To quantify the loss, the HC appointed a valuer and sought a report by March 9 after listening to Ranaut and the BMC.
The razing had taken place after Ranaut had lashed out on the MVA authorities and had alleged “abuse of power” and “malafide action” by the Shiv Sena-ruled BMC as a “counter blast” as she was “at loggerheads with the state over her outspoken comments”. The HC mentioned, “Irresponsible statements, however distasteful, are best ignored.” However, it mentioned, “Illegal and colourable action on part of the state or its agencies vis-a-vis a citizen, is far too serious and damaging to society to be overlooked.”
Rejecting BMC’s rivalry that the work demolished was “ongoing”, the HC in its 166-page judgment set out images and mentioned the work was “pre-existing”.
The HC mentioned civic officers invoked Section 354A of the BMC Act — meant for ongoing unlawful development, with a discover of simply 24 hours, not like Section 351 which presents seven days’ discover — for a “more sinister” goal, “mainly to prevent her from taking legal recourse”.
“The whole attempt of the BMC and its officers was to somehow present the petitioner (Ranaut) with a fait accompli, leaving her practically no time to seek redressal,” mentioned the courtroom, accepting her counsel Birendra Saraf’s submission that the demolition discover of September 7 and order had been each ex facie unlawful and deserved to be quashed. “We would be perfectly justified on the basis of law stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunbeam to order compensation,” it mentioned.
The demolition, the association for which, the HC famous, had begun even earlier than the H/West ward officer pasted his order at 10.35am, “was nothing but malice in law”. In different phrases, intentional harm sans any excuse.
The actor, 34, had petitioned HC for pressing intervention inside hours of a police squad and civic crew touchdown at her bungalow. The BMC had not even waited for her to succeed in Mumbai that day, mentioned her lawyer Rizwan Siddiquee. Ranaut had sought Rs 2 crore as damages, a declare which BMC by its counsel Aspi Chinoy, Anil Sakhare and advocate Joel Carlos had dubbed as “bogus”.
Sarafsaid BMC’s actions had been “lacking in good faith” and had an “ulterior motive,” with which the HC agreed.
“An administrative authority must act in a bona fide manner and should never act with improper or ulterior motives,” the HC mentioned. The bench had on September 9 stayed what it noticed even then was civic motion “smacking of mala fides.” In its remaining judgment it deprecated BMC’s “delaying” techniques that day when listening to was scheduled at 12.20 pm, to make sure “40%” of demolition was carried out.

Source hyperlink

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Select Language »
%d bloggers like this: