The Bombay High Court on Tuesday directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) not to take any coercive action against Union Minister Narayan Rane and his family, in furtherance of their notices and orders against Aadish Bungalow located at Juhu, Mumbai where Rane resides [Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.].A Bench of Justices AA Sayed and Abhay Ahuja directed the BMC to decide the application filed by Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt Ltd, a company in which Rane and his family holds shares, seeking regularisation of the portions of the bungalow.Till the application is decided, the BMC was directed not to take any coercive action against the bungalow. This protection was extended till 3 weeks beyond the final decision on the application.The petition stated that notices had been issued in the name of a company Artline Properties Pvt Ltd which was amalgamated and merged with Kaalkaa.The owner of the bungalow was Kaalkaa, but Rane along with his family were beneficial owners of the company and were residing at the bungalow. In view of this, the petition was being filed through the company, the plea stated.The plea filed through advocate Aagam Doshi sought quashing and setting aside of the notices and orders of the designated officer of the BMC on the ground that it was perverse, illegal and in violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights.It was brought to the High Court's attention that an application had been made to the BMC for retention of portions of the premises alleged to be in contravention by making payment of ₹8,790 as stipulated by the civic body..The petition stated that pursuant to media reports, an inspection notice was issued for the premises.Thereafter the first notice was issued on February 25, in the name of the owners/occupiers to show cause how the alleged unauthorised additions/ changes in usage of the premises were not in contravention to the approved plans.Post the first notice, the erstwhile directors were called for a hearing before the BMC officer. Meanwhile, a second notice was also issued on March 4, 2022 and a second schedule for hearing on March 10, 2022.The petitioner company was represented by an advocate at the scheduled dates of hearing where time was sought to appropriately respond.Despite that, the plea stated that two orders were passed against the first notice directing that the alleged unauthorised works be removed form the premises within 15 days failing which the corporation will demolish those portions and recover the charges from the owners/occupiers.Aggrieved by the issuance of notices and orders passed by the BMC, the present petition was filed.The Court disposed of the plea after granting interim protection to Rane.