Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Allegations Of Malice False, Kangana Ranaut Made Substantial Alterations And Additions Contrary To Approved Plan: MCGM Tells Bombay HC [Read affidavit]

Nitish Kashyap
26 Sep 2020 5:56 AM GMT
Allegations Of Malice False, Kangana Ranaut Made Substantial Alterations And Additions Contrary To Approved Plan: MCGM Tells Bombay HC [Read affidavit]
x

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai on Friday submitted a sur-rejoinder before the Bombay High Court stating that action of demolition of Kangana Ranaut's bungalow turned office taken under Section 354A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act was fully justified and allegations of malice by the actor are false and unwarranted as she was carrying on extensive work in her premises(with...

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai on Friday submitted a sur-rejoinder before the Bombay High Court stating that action of demolition of Kangana Ranaut's bungalow turned office taken under Section 354A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act was fully justified and allegations of malice by the actor are false and unwarranted as she was carrying on extensive work in her premises(with six workmen, materials etc) and had made substantial alterations and additions contrary to the approved building plan.

Bhagyavant Late, the designated officer of the concerned ward filed a sur-rejoinder on MCGM's behalf in response to the actor's rejoinder in her writ petition. Denying allegations of bias made by the petitioner citing designer Manish Malhotra's house as an example, the civic body sought to clarify that though there were alterations at Manish Malhotra's house, there were no workmen, hence no ongoing work.

In Friday's hearing, petitioner's counsel Senior Advocate Dr.Birendra Saraf vehemently denied that any work was going on at his client's bungalow and said that those five workmen (+ 1 supervisor) that were purported to be shown as workmen by the Corporation are random people standing around while demolition was being carried out.

The document states-

"In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner had also alleged bias and malice by stating that in the case of Manish Malhotra (and the nearby premises) the respondent had not issued notice under Section 354A but had issued notice under Section 351 and given Mr.Malhotra seven days time to reply. I say that the allegations of malice and bias are false and unwarranted. In the case of Mr.Malhotra's premises notice was issued under Section 351 and not under Section 354A as it was found that although there were additions and alterations, there were no workmen and there was no work going on in the premises."

Thereafter, the civic body addressed the petitioner's allegation that there was no detection of work in her premises on September 5 and has referred to the fact that the First Inspection Report mentions time and date of detection as September 7. The MCGM contended-

"I say that the controversy sought to be created is misplaced. On the 5th, the first respondents said Mukadam had in the course of his rounds/while serving notices to the other parties noticed the presence of workmen and work going on in the said property and bags filled with construction waste. He had also taken a few photos of the work/workmen. He had thereafter on the 05/09/2020 itself made a note about these facts. The said reports recorded ongoing work and bags filled with construction waste, but contained no details/particulars of the ongoing work. Based on the said report an inspection took place on 07/09/2020 in the course of which it was found that unlawful additions and alterations had been carried out contrary to the sanctioned building plans and that six workmen were present along with materials and facts containing plywood and debris and that work of renovation and finishing was going on in the entire premises."

Corporation also sought the writ petition to be dismissed as not maintainable and the petitioner to be relegated to filing a suit impugning notice under Section 354A. The sur-rejoinder states-

"I say that the petition and the rejoinder makes bald, vague and baseless allegations of malafide intent, ulterior motives, conspiracy and intention to harass on the part of the respondents. As I have stated earlier these allegations have been made as a counterblast and to obfuscate the fact that the petitioner was unlawfully carrying on work which entailed substantial additions and alterations to the premises, contrary to the approved building plan. Contrary to the approved building plan, I further say and submit that it is well settled that when malice/mala fides is alleged a statutory body such as the first respondents, it could not be as case of malice in fact but could only be malice in law, i.e. legal malafides.

Record established that petitioner was carrying on extensive work in her premises (with six workmen, materials) and had made substantial alterations and additions contrary to the approved building plan, action under Section 354A was fully justified and the allegations of malafides in law are unwarranted and false."

The matter will now be heard on September 28 (Monday) at 11 am.
[Read Affidavit]



Next Story