The Indian Express | 4 days ago | 23-06-2022 | 05:45 pm
The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea by the company owned by Union minister and BJP leader Narayan Rane challenging the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC’s) order refusing retention of allegedly unauthorised structures at his eight-storey Juhu bungalow.However, a division bench of Justice R D Dhanuka and Justice M G Sewlikar extended the protection from “coercive action” on Rane’s bungalow by six weeks to enable Rane’s company to challenge the same in the Supreme Court.The BMC issued a notice to Kaalkaa Real Estates Ltd in March this year, directing it to remove alleged unauthorised construction on the premises within 15 days, failing which the civic body said it would demolish those portions and recover the charges from the owners/occupiers.The plea stated that the communication was issued in the name of Artline Properties Private Limited. As per the National Company Law Tribunal’s 2017 order, Artline was amalgamated and merged with petitioner company Kaalkaa Real Estates in which Rane’s family holds shares. As owners of the company, the Rane family resided in the bungalow. However, as the premises was owned by the company, the plea was filed through it, the petition said.The notice was challenged before the high court, which directed the civic body not to proceed with any coercive action till it decides on his regularisation application.The court had said that if an order passed by BMC is against or adverse to the petitioner, no coercive steps be taken for three weeks from the date of receipt of such an order by the petitioner. The said relief continues till June 24.The BMC rejected the regularisation application on June 3 and as the protection granted by the HC is to expire on June 24, Rane sought an urgent hearing of his plea.Rane, in his plea, said the BMC had rejected his plea stating that plans for the bungalow were approved free of Floor Space Index (FSI) and the same was not permissible as per the Development Control Regulations (DCR).Moreover, Rane had said another ground for rejection of his plea was non-receipt of pre-clearance from Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) for proposed regularisation of alleged unauthorised work and the same ought to have been raised before issuing the rejection order.The plea sought to quash and set aside the rejection of the application and also an order to retain the structure. However, the BMC lawyer opposed the plea and stated that its order was justified and the same cannot be set aside.The bench held that Rane’s plea was “devoid of merits” and dismissed the same.