Bombay High Court orders demolition of Union Minister Narayan Rane's Juhu bungalow within 2 weeks, imposes ₹10 lakh costs on minister's company

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday ordered Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to demolish within 2 weeks, the illegal portions of a bungalow belonging to the company owned by the family of Union minister Narayan Rane..A bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and Kamal Khata also imposed costs of ₹10 lakh on the company to be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (MALSA) while dismissing the petition seeking directions to BMC to consider the second regularisation application.The Bench also made pertinent observations while restraining BMC from considering a regularisation application filed by Rane for the second time. "If the application made by the petitioners for retention/regularization is allowed to be considered by the corporation, who is bent upon to consider and allow such application irrespective of the extent of violation of provisions of law committed by the petitioners, any such order passed by this court would amount to encouragement of the wholesale unauthorized construction carried out in fragrant violation of the statutes and would over reach the earlier order of this court. The proposed retention/ regularization of unauthorized work, if accepted, will amount to encouragement of the widespread/ large scale violation of provisions of law and invite wrongdoer to carry out any extent of unauthorized construction in the city of Mumbai without any fear of penal action," the Bench emphasized..Advocate Shardul Singh for the petitioner sought for 6 weeks stay on the demolition in order to approach the Supreme Court. However the Bench refused the prayer..The plea filed by Rane's family owned company, Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt Ltd, sought directions to the BMC to consider the new application seeking regularisation of the bungalow situated at Juhu in Mumbai.The company filed the fresh regularisation application before BMC under Section 342 of the MMC Act which stipulates notifying the Commissioner for making any alteration or addition to an existing building..BMC had issued a notice to Kaalkaa in March directing it to remove the alleged unauthorised work on the premises within 15 days failing which the corporation will demolish those portions and recover the charges from the owners/ occupiers.This notice was challenged before the High Court pursuant to which the Court had protected the structure from demolition till June 24, until the regularisation application by Rane was heard by BMC.Subsequently, the regularisation application was rejected by the BMC on June 3. Since the protection granted by the High Court was expiring soon, Rane moved High Court seeking urgent relief.On June 23, the High Court rejected Rane’s petition challenging the rejection order. Pursuant to this, Rane filed a second application before BMC, and moved High Court for directions..When the plea in relation to second application came up for hearing, the Court had queried whether a second such application under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act would be maintainable in the first place.BMC responded that the company owned by Rane’s family could file a second application for regularisation which would be considered by the civic body in accordance with the provisions of existing acts and regulations.The Bench, however, was not pleased with the stand as the earlier regularisation application had not only been rejected by BMC on merits but the same had been upheld by the High Court in a detailed order.After hearing the petition extensively, the Bench reserved the plea for orders concluding that since there seemed to be no opposition by the civic body, it was upon them to consider whether such unauthorised construction could be allowed by the authority or not.The Bench held today that such second regularisation application cannot be considered. "The petitioners or even the Municipal Corporation cannot be allowed to brush aside the finding of large scale unauthorized construction rendered by the Corporation and accepted by this Court under the guise of considering the second application made by the petitioners for retention. The Corporation cannot be allowed to take such an inconsistent stand and more particularly when the earlier order had been upheld by this court", the Bench observed in conclusion..[Read judgement]