The Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation has filed an additional affidavit before the Bombay High Court refuting the accusations levelled against it by actor Kangana Ranaut in relation to the dispute over demolition works on her property. .Interim order halting BMC's demolition work on Kangana Ranaut's property to continue till September 22: Bombay HC .In her amended writ petition, Ranaut had stated that the demolition of her properties by the Corporation was "a counterblast of the displeasure of persons in power", provoked by her stances on social issues..BMC’s actions were a counterblast of the displeasure of persons in power: Kangana Ranaut's amended plea in Bombay HC seeks Rs 2 Cr damages.The Corporation has stated that it has been prompted to file the additional affidavit because Ranaut's amended plea was virtually a replacement of her earlier petition before the Court..The affidavit emphasizes that Ranaut's alterations to her property were illegal and that the reliefs she has sought could not be granted by way of a writ petition.."... the Petitioner who has illegally carried out such substantial unlawful additions and alterations, contrary to the sanctioned Building Plan , should not be permitted to seek relief designed to protect such unlawful work, by approaching this Hon'ble Court by a writ petition under Article 226."Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation.Rubbishing the charge that the Corporation's actions were an attempt to silence her for her views on social issues, the corporation has instead averred that the allegations were an attempt to obfuscate Ranaut's illegal alterations to her property..The affidavit further lays out that Ranaut did not deny carrying out alterations to the property and that she only insisted that the work had been carried out some time before. The petitioner has only made false and baseless allegations of harassment and mala fides, the affidavit states..In its version of the events that led up to the demolition, the Corporation has claimed that it attempted to serve notice on its inquiry into the alterations on her property on September 7. The actor's representative person on the premises, however, refused notice, the Corporation states..Ranaut has submitted that she was served notice only after an inspection was undertaken on September 7. .Therefore, the municipal body contends that it was forced to paste the notice on her property the next day. After this, Ranaut's counsel sent a letter in response to the notice seeking time to file a reply. .Since the reply did not have a copy of the permissions received for the alterations attached or deny that the alterations were illegal, the Authority sanctioned the demolition, it is stated..Further the only sanctions procured by Ranaut were for general renovations, and not for alterations, it has been submitted..The allegation that the inspection took place only on September 7 has also been refuted by the corporation, which states that the alterations caught the corporation's notice on September 5..As opposed to the actor's recounting that there was only one worker on the premises fixing leaks and doing waterproofing, there were more than five workers undertaking renovation works on the property, the corporation further contends..For all these reasons, the actor is not entitled to relief, the Corporation has asserted.
