The Bombay High Court on Tuesday pulled up the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for allowing Union Minister Narayan Rane to file a second regularisation application with respect to his Juhu bungalow despite his first application being rejected by the municipal body..A bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and Kamal Khata was informed on Tuesday by the BMC 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.“Does the order passed by this Court have no sanctity? This will be never ending. Once an order has been passed by this court, again you take a different stand. Is BMC above the court?” the Bench demanded.After hearing the petition extensively, the Bench concluded 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.“Where is the opposition by the public body? We will take up the task to decide whether a civic body can allow unauthorised construction. Closed for orders,” the Bench said..This was the second application filed by Rane on the same issue. His first plea was rejected by BMC.The petition was filed through Kaalkaa Real Estates, a company owned by Rane’s family seeking directions to the planning department within BMC to decide the new application uninfluenced by the orders passed by BMC including the rejection of the retention application.The Court had earlier sought to know from the municipal body whether a second application on the same issue would be maintainable..On Tuesday, the authority filed an affidavit stating that the second application was maintainable and that they would consider the same independently of the first application.Senior Advocate Anil Sakhare, appearing for BMC, informed that as per provisions of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act, there is no bar or restrictions imposed to submit proposal for retention or regularisation of existing building once earlier proposal is rejected..The Court was not impressed. “What is the purpose of regularisation? If a construction is permissible for 50 floors and you use some portion of FSI and thereafter the construction ends up to be beyond the FSI then will that be regularised?” the Court asked the counsel..Advocate Shardul Singh, contended on behalf of Rane's company that it will not carry out construction or change user till the application is decided. Once the application is decided, and if the same is in their favour, then the company will ensure that all compliances are made within the statutory time and no extensions will be sought, Rane's lawyer said..But the Court seemed dissatisfied with the submissions made.“This is the purpose of regularisation? That you take FSI from here and there and then regularise illegal structures? If corporation is able to regularise everything, then large scale illegalities will be permissible. What is the extent beyond which a case can fall outside gross irregularity?” the Bench said, before reserving the plea for orders.