Union Minister Narayan Rane through his company has moved Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the notices issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on Aadish Bungalow located at Juhu, Mumbai. .The petition stated that notices had been issued in the name of a company Artline Properties Pvt Ltd which was amalgamated and merged with a company, Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., in which Rane and his family held shares. Being beneficial owners of the company, Rane and his family resided in the Aadish Bungalow but since the premises were owned by the company, 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 BMC on the ground that it was perverse and illegal and in violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights. .The plea was mentioned by advocate Amogh Singh on Monday. A Bench of Justices AA Sayed and Abhay Ahuja will hear the plea on March 22, 2022..The petition stated that pursuant to media reports, an inspection notice was issued for the premises. Subsequently, some officers from the BMC visited the premises and made a panchnama report. 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. Rane's wife Neelam Rane and son Nilesh Rane, erstwhile directors of Artline, responded to the notice highlighting the malafide intention. The reply stated that the notice had been issued after nine years of completion of the building. 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. The erstwhile directors sought time to appropriately respond to the notice and schedule for hearing.In response to this, the directors received a second schedule for hearing on March 10, 2022. The petitioner company was represented by an advocate in the scheduled date of hearing where time was sought to appropriately respond. Simultaneously, the company also made an application for retention of portions of the premises alleged to be in contravention by making payment of ₹8790 as stipulated by BMC. The plea said that their application clarified that there was no contravention of any regulation and the entire premise was within the permissible FSI limit. A detailed response was given to the second notice as well. Despite that, the designated officer proceeded to pass an order against the first notice directing that the alleged unauthorized 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. Thereafter, the second scheduled hearing also took place and an identical order was passed. Aggrieved by the issuance of notices and orders passed by BMC, the present petition has been filed.