The Bombay High Court on Thursday ordered the District Coastal Zone Monitoring Committee (DCZMC) to decide if it has jurisdiction to issue show cause notice to the company owned by Union Minister Narayan Rane over the alleged unauthorised construction in his bungalow at Mumbai's plush Juhu area..A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Makarand Karnik was hearing a plea filed by Kaalkaa Real Estate Private Limited, the firm owned by Rane, challenging the notices issued to it for the unauthorised construction in his bungalow - Aadish. In his plea, Rane has challenged the communication by the Mumbai Suburban Collector which alleged violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone No Objection Certificate (CRZ NOC) by the bungalow.The communication also called upon Rane and his family to show cause as to why the alleged structure ought not be treated as unauthorised.As per Rane's petition, the MCZMA had issued such notice in name of Artline Properties Pvt. Ltd. a company which had merged with the minister's Kaalkaa Real Estate firm..Senior Advocate Dr Milind Sathe and advocate Amogh Singh, appearing for Rane, contended that since there weren't any details as to which parts of the bungalow are in breach of CRZ norms, the said communication was illegal.Sathe further contended that DCZMC which issued communication through the Collector did not have jurisdiction for issuing such a notice/communication.The petition further stated that since the DCZMC lacks such a power, the communication issued was illegal and arbitrary.On Thursday, the Bench was apprised of the fact that even the Brihanmumbai Muncipal Corporation (BMC) has issued notices for demolition of the bungalow; however, another bench of the High Court had ordered the civic body not to proceed with the notice and consider the application by the minister seeking to regularise the said structures.However, the application was rejected by the BMC and subsequently, the MCZMA had issued the present notice to Rane's firm..Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni contended that the DCZMC had sought details on the structure from the BMC and based on the report sent across from BMC, discovered that there indeed was violation.Accordingly, they communicated the same to the Collector’s office who issued the communication.The notice, he argued, was merely to show cause reasons for not taking action, and not a demolition notice as was portrayed by Rane, and hence the petition was premature.After considering the rival submissions by counsel, the Bench ordered the DCZMC to first consider the issue of jurisdiction and then proceed on the merits."Considering that BMC has also proceeded to take action against subject bungalow and order of demolition is passed and thereafter application for regularisation is passed which has since been rejected coupled with the fact that BMC has been restrained from taking coercive action till June 24 by way of order dated March 22. We are of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if after examining claim of jurisdiction the committee itself is directed to give its ruling on the point of jurisdiction by giving a personal hearing to the applicant on June 22," the bench said in its order.Once the committee decides on the point, the applicant is open to exercise its remedy in accordance with law, the Court added. "We make it clear that since the notice is not a notice seeking explanation as to why subject bungalow should be demolished, we hope that once the objection is spurned and the committee decides to proceed for further action to remove the offending construction, it shall issue further notice and such intention may be contained in the notice sent," the Court said.