Union Minister Narayan Rane approached the Bombay High Court, through his company, on Monday challenging the notices issued to him and his family by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) asking them to demolish the alleged illegal alterations made in his Adish Bungalow in suburban Juhu.
BMC had issued two notices to Ranes and passed orders asking them to demolish the unauthorised alterations, failing which it (BMC) would be compelled to demolish the same and recover the charges from the owner.
Seeking quashing of these notices, Rane's plea states that the orders are “perverse, illegal and in violation of his fundamental rights”.
Rane's advocate Amogh Singh mentioned the petition seeking urgent hearing before a division bench of justices Amjad Sayed and Abhay Ahuja. The bench has kept the petition for hearing on Tuesday.
According to the plea, the BMC notice has been issued in the name of a company ‘Artline Properties Pvt Ltd’, which was amalgamated and merged with another company – Kalka Pvt Ltd – in which Rane and his family held shares.
The premises is owned in the company's name. However, being the beneficial owners, Rane, his wife Neelam and son Nilesh reside in the Adish Bungalow. Hence the petition has been filed by the company.
The first notice was issued on February 25, in the name of owners/ occupiers, asking to show cause how the alleged unauthorised additions/ changes in usage of the premises were not in contravention to the approved plans.
Neelam and Nilesh, 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. They were then called for a hearing before the BMC officer. Meanwhile, a second notice was also issued on March 4, 2022.
Simultaneously, the company made an application for retention of portions of the premises alleged to be in contravention by making payment as stipulated by BMC.
The plea states that the company has clarified in the application that there was no contravention of any regulation and the entire premise was within the permissible FSI limit. Despite this, the BMC officer passed an order directing removal of the alleged unauthorised work.
A second hearing took place following which another similar order was passed by the BMC.
Hence, the petition has been filed in HC seeking quashing of the same.