The Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed the petition filed by Union Minister Narayan Rane challenging the demolition order passed by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) against Adish Bungalow located at Juhu, Mumbai where Rane resides..A bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and MG Sewlikar held that the petition was devoid of merits and proceeded to dismiss the same. Senior Advocate Dr. Milind Sathe for Rane sought for extension of interim relief against BMC by 6 weeks so as to enable Rane to approach the Supreme Court which he stated would reopen in July. When BMC did not raise any objection to the same, the Court extended the protection by 6 weeks. .As per Rane's petition, BMC had rejected an application filed by Rane for relief stating that the plans of the bungalow were approved free of Floor Space Index (FSI) and the same was not permissible as per the Development Control Regulations.Another reason for rejection was the non-receipt of the pre-clearance from the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA) for proposed regulation of the alleged unauthorised work.Sathe argued that this objection ought to have been raised before, but was raised only in the rejection order.Sathe showed the Court a property card stated that Rane had ownership of over 1187 square metres of land and hence the Floor Space Index (FSI) of that area was to be considered. He additionally pointed out that the Development Control Regulations of 1991 were applicable when he got his plans sanctioned and not of the year 2011. He contended that BMC's action was pre-determined and malicious. "The entire act is totally malafide and based on political battle between Narayan Rane and Shiv Sena" Sathe argued.Sathe prayed for scrutiny of the property by an independent architect appointed by the court..On the other hand, Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy for BMC pointed out that Rane had in fact carried out construction over 2,209 square metres of property and the plan that he submitted for approval was for an area of over 700 square metres. Chinoy informed the Court that Rane built over three times the area which had been sanctioned for construction and hence it was important for Rane to justify why he ought to be given the benefit of additional FSI. .The Bench observed that it was not inclined to agree with the submissions of Sathe. The Bench also deduced that since the construction was unauthorised, there was no question of raising any political rivalry. "There is a serious issue raised on the unauthorised construction, it is required to be considered. We are afraid we cannot accept submission of Sathe that FSI of a larger plot ought to have been considered. In our view the petition is devoid of merits, it is dismissed," the bench ordered.