Thread by @barandbench

#BombayHighCourt takes up for hearing the plea filed by
@KanganaTeam
challenging BMC's move to demolish portions of her property on grounds of alleged illegal alterations.

Sr Adv Birendra Saraf appears for
@KanganaTeam

Sr Adv. Aspi Chinoy appears for
@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut

Chinoy informs Bombay HC that it was not the Mukadam who took the photos of the demolished property, but a sub-engineer, Mukesh Godse

Court: No one has said that there was sub engineer
Chinoy: Even I didn't know (at the time of the last hearing)

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy: It is only when I asked the Mukadam, that he was told. By that time hearing was over. Only thing I could do was tell your Lordships first thing (today)

Court says it appreciates Chinoy for informing the Court now.

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy adds that the mobile phones of both the Mukadam and the sub-engineer, Mukesh Godse, will be submitted to the court in 1/2 hour to 45 minutes.

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy informs Court that he received the affidavit filed for @KanganaTeam on Sunday.

He says he does not want to file another reply to it.

Chinoy: I don't admit the contents. (but he is not submitting further response) Otherwise, it will go on endlessly.

#KanganaRanaut

Saraf submits that he is submitting a collation of photographs regarding the state of the property.

Court: What you have to show is that they have demolished existing structures.

Saraf: That is what we have tried to present... I will present them accordingly, as required.

Saraf: Each of these photographs shows that each of the items existed, milord...

... This action (demolition) is in gross contempt of your Lordships' orders

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Saraf recounts that courts passed orders to protect the rights of parties in light of COVID-19 situation.

Authorities were expected to be slow before taking actions that would drive persons to courts.

#KanganaRanaut
#bombayhighcourt

Saraf adds that orders for eviction, dispossession, demolition already passed were also to remain in abeyance

HC muses that if the Court had only expressed hope on this aspect, it may not be contempt

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

#BombayHighCourt: We can give you a number of orders, where the Court has asked to demolish and they have not.

We have issued contempt also. We know these things.

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut

#BombayHighCourt: There are cases where we have given costs for 4 or 5 officers in 1 year because they haven't demolished for years

We have said on the first hearing that if they would just admit such swiftness, Bombay would be a better place to live in

@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut

Saraf: (It is provided in the) MRTP Act that on receipt of a notice to remove the unauthorised structure, you can make an application to retain the structure under section 44

(MRTP Act - The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act)

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Court: You are talking about regularisation

Saraf: Yes. the notice should not be acted upon in the meanwhile

Saraf adds that similar provisions are found in the BMC's act u/Ss 342 and 351.

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Saraf: The scheme is if the work already existed, the person is given due notice of 7 days and told to show cause.

You take further action depending on the show cause.

In this 7 days, the person has a number of rights. He can show that there is no unauthorised work.

Saraf adds that this is evident from @mybmc circulars.

He argues that there are circulars where the entirety of buildings and floors have been regularised.

Saraf: So there is nothing that you cannot regularise the internal work of some flat, originally capable of being done

Saraf submits that the idea is that work which is ongoing not be continued without permission

If I have permission, I can show the permission. If I don't have the permission, I only have to stop the work.

If the work was stopped, then he could not have gone and demolished it.

Saraf submits that it is only if the erection of the building or execution of work is not stopped on the commissioner's orders, where there is no permission, then the drastic power under Section 354A (for demolition) can be resorted to.

#KanganaRanaut

Saraf: The demolition notice and order itself is not in consonance with Section 345A

First, it is my case there wasn't any illegal work.

Then was no work going on. No one came and visited and saw that there was work going on, he adds.

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut

Saraf refers to a Feb 28, 2020 circular which deals with the penalty for regularisation of illegal structures (and the procedure for the same).

Any interior alteration which is not in the plan is also covered, he informs.

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Saraf adds that the Courts have been also been allowing the regularisation of buildings after buildings that have come up in Mumbai after imposing an appropriate penalty.

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

This scheme (for regularisation) is available, but @KanganaTeam was deprived of the same in this case by the @mybmc, Saraf submits.

Saraf: I am not a person who is an expert under Development Control...But this is something the corporation ought to have permitted me to do..

Saraf: If any work required permission, then it was available to me to make the appropriate application (for regularisation).

Instead, the @mybmc has applied a provision which is ex facie not applicable.

@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Saraf refers to guidelines put in place by the SC in 1996, which included giving 15 days notice in matters involving illegal structures or demolition.

Sec 345A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act was amended later to include demolition powers. Earlier it was only in 351.

The 1996 guidelines were issued by the SC in the Sopan Maruti Thopte and anr v. Pune Municipal Corporation case.

SC's Thopte guidelines were in relation to Section 351, as it stood then.

At the time guidelines were issued so that if Commissioner ordered demolition, short notice of 24 hours was to be given, a panchnama drawn at site and photos of demolition with the date was to be taken.

In the amended Sections 351 or 354A of the BMC's Act, there is not a requirement for panchnama or photographs.

Saraf, however, refers to observations in a later ruling that, the directions given in Thopte’s case would continue to be binding on the Municipal Corporation, even after amendment.

The ruling being referred to is Sub Vijay International Pvt ltd. vs. Commissioner, MCGM (2006)

Saraf refers to SC Ruling in MCGM v. Sunbeam High Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd.

He submits that this case shows that even if the structure is illegal but if the demolition was not proper/illegal, compensation can be granted.

Aspi Chinoy requests that Saraf also read some lines from Paras 21-22 of the SC's Sunbeam ruling

Saraf reads: ... "All over the country we find that when people raise illegal constructions it is claimed that the said construction has been existing for long..."

The full SC ruling referred to can be read here:

main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2…

Referring to various observations in the Sunbeam case, Saraf refers to time given to a person prior to demolition of any illegal structure

Saraf: The SC says that even if there is an ongoing work, if you have given a notice 24 hours, and you have received a response, please wait for 7 days so the party can avail remedies in law or approach a writ court.

This is actually an improvement from the guidelines in Thopte

Saraf: First of all, no work was going on.

But assuming there was work going on notice should have been given in line with these guidelines, photos should have been given showing the illegalities.

Here, there was only one photo of that one man on a ladder

#KanganaRanaut

Saraf: Assuming they have passed the order, they should have waited for 7 days as per SC guidelines

The corporation has acted in a high handed manner, in not complying with the SC's guidelines.

What answer can be there from any officer about this?

#KanganaRanaut

Chinoy says that the SC order has no reference anywhere to Sec 354A, only Sec 351.

Saraf: This is why I pointed out, this guideline was also in the context of 354A. The Bombay HC read it as a guideline for 354A, this was modified by the SC

Saraf: Time and again, whenever S 351 notices have been issued, parties have come before Courts, which has allowed the parties to apply for regularisation.

There are very many remedies available to the party. There were there in existence before I took the bungalow.

Saraf: They have shown plans from the 1970s... If advised I could have made an application for regularisation also. These were things that were denied to me.

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Saraf: The second ground that I seek to canvass is malafides. I'm putting my case on both footings - malice in fact and malice in law.

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Saraf: If it is a situation where the authorities have acted in a high handed manner without complying with SC guidelines, irrespective of intention also, it amounts to malice in law

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

As far as "malice in fact" is concerned, Saraf points out that it is not in dispute that @KanganaTeam made certain controversial comments.

On Sept 5 I made comment critical of the @MumbaiPolice , in retaliation an interview was given.

Saraf: The fact that on a particular day, one of my tweets got an extremely strong response from @rautsanjay61 where he said she has to be taught a lesson...

Court: Please play the recording.

Chinoy: The tweet referred to, I believe it came at 5 pm. If he is relying on any earlier tweet, it has some relevance.

Chinoy seeks clarification.

Saraf says that the tweet is not on record, it will be produced by afternoon.

Saraf plays Hindi audio of the interview with @rautsanjay61.

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Court notes that the speaker refers to some tweets by the petitioner: Give us her tweets also.

Saraf says that he will submit the same.

Adv Pradeep Thorat (for @rautsanjay61): The petitioner is not referred by name (in the audio)

Court: (If it is your stand that) you (in the audio) have not called the petitioner a "Haramkhor", we will record it. Should we record your statement?

Saraf says that the interview indicates where it started.

It is not a question of timing - whether 5 pm or 4 pm or 3 pm - around the same day the mukadam visits the bungalow.

Saraf: The manner in which on Sept 7 the entire BMC team swooped in, the discrepancy in documents, the manner in which the law is ignored, the process is carried out under Sec 354A instead of Sec 351 ...

Saraf: The manner in which the went about demolishing... these factors when taken together show that this was an action vitiated by malice, malice in fact.

He adds that this was followed by a news item where @rautsanjay61 is deputy editor - it shows as if it is rejoicing news

Chinoy again seeks for clarification on when the tweet by @KanganaTeam was made (time), which the petition states was a trigger.

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Saraf: In recent times the petitioner has been at loggerheads with the Maharashtra Government over the way in which certain issues have been handled. This displeased certain quarters.

I had to take steps for security.

Saraf: Thereafter I made a comment on September 5. In retaliation, there was this interview...

Saraf adds that he will submit all the tweets in the prior 15-20 days for the Court this afternoon.

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Saraf reads various judgments which deal with malice in law.

Among other rulings, Saraf refers to observations in the SC ruling of Rajneesh Khanhuri v. M/S Woockhardt Ltd. And anr.

Full text available here:

main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2…

Saraf observes that anything done in the disregard of rights of others and with a depraved inclination is malice in law.

Saraf: Considering the entirety of circumstances in this case, there is clearly malice in fact. And there cannot be any doubt of there being malice in law.

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Saraf makes submissions countering @mybmc contention that the writ petition by @KanganaTeam is not maintainable.

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Court: It is your case that even if there is an alternate remedy, it is not that the court cannot decide the matter in a writ petition?

Saraf: Yes, there is a long line of judgments.

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Saraf reads a ruling where the Court observed that the High Court can even take up writ petitions involving a disputed question of fact and that there cannot be an absolute bar on the Court's jurisdiction.

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Saraf reads a case where the Court observed that the State is expected to be a model and virtuous litigant.

He reads out that the Court has said that the State should not adopt technical pleas to defeat the legitimate and just claims of citizens

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Saraf: This stance (that writ petition is not maintainable) comes in a sur-rejoinder (saying that the petitioner has made no denials in the first petition and that it was raised additionally in her rejoinder).

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Saraf: First of all, there were no "denials for the first time."

This stance of relegating me to a suit is not right.

There is not disputed questions of fact. The records establish all facts beyond an aorta of doubt.

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Saraf submits that what is being sought is for the petitioner to have the opportunity to address any concerns. If required, she would take steps to regularise as well after due consultation.

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Court asks how much time it may take.

Maybe, about a month will be required, Saraf notes.

Saraf: I can start doing it in phases, as early as possible. but I will have to take instructions. I can answer by afternoon

Referring to the prayer made for Rs 2 crores compensation, Saraf adds that this was the assessment of the damages that the petitioner arrived at, for which particulars have been submitted.

He adds that the Court may appoint a surveyor to determine the damages.

#KanganaRanaut

It is absolutely within the power of the court to award actual damages, Saraf submits.

The petitioner has actually be wronged in the case, the house has been demolished without following the process of law, this is a case for awarding compensation, he asserts.

#KanganaRanaut

Saraf adds a submission that he may be allowed to deal with affidavits of the respondents which he has not viewed yet in another rejoinder.

Court tells @mybmc counsel that certain files asked for have not been recieved yet.

Court adds that it does not require the mobile phones (on which the demolition photos are stated to have been taken by BMC officials) any longer.

Court: We are more interested in the files now.

Chinoy says that he has ensured that the whole files would be submitted, rather than just the note.

Saraf submits that he will submit all tweets made by @KanganaTeam by 3 o clock today.

Court adds: We want the full interview of R5 (@rautsanjay61).

Court says: You only gave an extract. We want the full thing.

Saraf says he will submit the full interview, as well as subsequent explanations, give by @rautsanjay61 on what he meant by "Haramkhor"

Saraf: His explanation was it means "naughty"

Court remarks: Then what is naughty?

Court says: Give us his full interview.

Hearing to resume at 3 pm.

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc
@rautsanjay61

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Hearing resumes.

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc
@rautsanjay61

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Saraf says he has submitted the tweets by @KanganaTeam from Aug 30 onwards

He adds that he has not been able to trace the entire video of the interview with @rautsanjay61. Only a clipping is available in the public domain. Efforts are being made to trace the full video, he says

Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy to make submissions for
@mybmc

Bombay HC asks certain questions Chinoy on files submitted by the BMC and photos given as part of the files.

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy suggests that while he argues, paginations can be correlated so that the Court can read the files and photographs easier.

He also adds that the BMC's designated officer can come to assist the Court if required.

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Court: Ask him to come at 4.30

Chinoy: We will communicate immediately. 99% there should be no problem. If he is out somewhere, we will communicate immediately.

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy: This petition is being portrayed as an individual being harassed because of her public utterances against a govt and party in power.

The reality is slightly different. This is a case where the petitioner has unlawfully carried out substantial illegal alterations

Chinoy: In all the petitions, additional affidavit, a complete revamp in a rejoinder etc. there is a studied silence on when this work was done.

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Referring to allegations of harassment, Chinoy says this case actually is on the other side of the coin.

Chinoy: It is like claiming an immunity be relying on your public utterances and saying if action is taken gains unlawful construction, it's harassment.

#KanganaRanaut

Chinoy: Lawyers and judges get coloured to some extent by what they hear in the media.

I will establish to the hilt this is a case of substantial alterations. There is a rectitude as to when the alterations took place.

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy: Writ petitions challenging S 351 354A is not maintainable generally - I am not saying that it is inflexible. The remedy is a suit.

What is the exception in the petition to this rule?

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy: There is no word as to why this petition should be entertained. What are the exceptional circumstances? why it should be sent as a suit?

You should make out a clear case for an exception. It is not a matter of form, it is a matter of substance.

#KanganaRanaut

Chinoy: It cannot be that a political controversy that has been created by petitioner in media is an exceptional circumstance. Otherwise, it will be the tail wagging the dog.

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy: You create a controversy and say that the whole norm of legal process should not be followed.

Nowhere in the pleadings, any case of exceptional circumstance is made out. Otherwise, I could meet it.

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy: The record establishes that the petitioner has brazenly carried out extensive alterations and additions contrary to the building plan.

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy refers to the response by @KanganaTeam on September 8 where she denied any work as alleged and sought time to respond and alleged trespass by BMC officials.

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy: You could have come out and said that only waterproofing is going on.

You said that no work is going on categorically, when the day before we went and saw 6 workmen, debris, plywood.

The only answer is "no work is going on."

@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy adds when the response was only that "no work is being carried out" in this case, "the law says, I don't have to wait."

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Referring to @KanganaTeam 's response that she could not understand the first notice within a short span of 24 hours, Chinoy says: We are not using technical terminology. What was she not able to comprehend?

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy says that @KanganaTeam 's writ petition only has "evasive denials" when it comes to countering the @mybmc 's allegations.

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy: Nowhere in the petition does she say that she did not carry out the work, that work was not there, that she had permission -nothing!

This is a writ u/226. One does not play poker in these matters. These are careful denials I specifically pointed this out in the rejoinder

Chinoy adds that @KanganaTeam has not detailed in her plea when the alterations and modifications were done.

Chinoy: I have not got on my records any applications for doing any such work. ... If you do not say anything, and you only say no work is being done...

@mybmc

Court points out that @KanganaTeam may have been asking time to explain

Chinoy: If she had said that this work was done 6 months ago, and only finishing is being done... (instead) She said there was no work being done...

#BombayHighCourt
#KanganaRanaut

Court points out that Kangana Ranaut was not in Mumbai at the time.

Chinoy: In this day if you can tweet from Mohali to Bombay, you can also answer your advocate on the phone

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#BombayHighCourt
#KanganaRanaut

If she said I was stopping of the work, or I have permission, then the hearing and 7-day period would have kicked in, Chinoy submits.

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#BombayHighCourt
#KanganaRanaut

Court: When did you realise the work was going on?

Chinoy: Only on the 5th. The first report of work being carried out is on 5th, based on which there was an inspection on 7th

She only said I am not carrying out any work at all. Which was clearly wrong.

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

Chinoy: This has gone on throughout the petition - this evasive approach, not saying when the work was done- come clean! Why should this approach be taken in a writ?

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#BombayHighCourt
#KanganaRanaut

Chinoy: When you built toilets in an open chowk, it is an FSI issue. This is not a small matter. She fully well she knows what she was saying.

Why is that she has a very good memory for things on public domain but not of the money and time she spent for these huge developments?

Chinoy: This is lakhs and lakhs of work which went down over weeks.

How come your memory fails you on this work? Somewhere in the affidavit, she should have come clean. This has gone on for around a month. Her candour has still not come through.

Chinoy: When did you do it, did you apply for permission? Nothing is answered.

In Article 226 petition, a person who comes with this course of a case is seeking equitable relief!

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#BombayHighCourt
#KanganaRanaut

Chinoy, referring to High Court's earlier observations that there a lot of illegal structures in Bombay which have not been demolished as swiftly:

Chinoy: I agree that there is a quicker response in this case. But that is not an answer! You cannot carry out illegal construction

Court explains: We are examining whether there is malafide or malice involved.

Chinoy: Malice and malafide has to be in the context of a petitioner

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#BombayHighCourt
#KanganaRanaut

Court points to the petitioner's submissions when the demolition was carried out, there were no workers

Chinoy: May be so, but Section 354 can't be looked at that way.

Chinoy: Hypothetically, say that the work started earlier. When I come and see this happening and all these changes, I can proceed on basis that this is continuing

Otherwise, it would make Section 345 a dead letter. Then we can only demolish a large brick.

Chinoy: We have nothing on record to say that was done earlier. She has never applied for permission.

If you (@KanganaTeam) had said "I had done this work, four months earlier, am only doing waterproofing", the situation would have been different

Court points out then that any work may have stopped

Chinoy: But did they say we have stopped the work (in the response) that they were doing? They did not. I would have had to hear them if they did.

You have deliberately chosen no to do so, so then how can you object?

Chinoy: Where is the malice in law?

The tweet by @KanganaTeam on the @MumbaiPolice was at 5 o clock. The @mybmc visit was at 2 pm.

Chinoy: How can they be linked?

#BombayHighCourt
#KanganaRanaut

Chinoy: I am not concerned or dealing with political parties.

This interview (by @rautsanjay61) - I am not concerned with

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#BombayHighCourt
#KanganaRanaut

Chinoy: Can a person carrying out unlawful work say "malice in law" when the unlawful work is demolished?

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#BombayHighCourt
#KanganaRanaut

Why can't we presume a continuum, in the absence of any statement to the contrary? Chinoy asks

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#BombayHighCourt
#KanganaRanaut

Chinoy: Suppose a room is being built, the brickwork is complete by the plastering is going on - can't I invoke Section 345A? Of course, I can. It is a process. It is not that it starts at one stage and stops at another.

Chinoy: He says "no work is being carried out" he does not say "this work is being carried out" or "this work was done three months earlier."

Court: That is what he is saying

Chinoy: No, Milord. He said "no work" was being carried out.

Chinoy: He had enough time to say this properly. He cants say "I won't tell you, but you should have known this is not a continuum"

Even today, he is being extremely coy. When was this work being done? How was this done? Why this sudden reluctance or amnesia on a selective fact?

Saraf objects to Chinoy's comments criticising the petitioner for being evasive in her writ petition.

Saraf: This is the third time he is saying that I am taking advantage of the court's umbrage. This is unfair.

Court: We are not going to object. We are used to all this

Chinoy: I am not insinuating in any way a lack of faith in the court.

He re-asserts that the petitioner has not divulged all information in the petition.

Chinoy: Can a 226 court be treated like this?

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy: The record shows unlawful work extensively carried out and you try to be coy about it. You are still not able to tell us when the work was done if it was done earlier. She only says not the 7th, she does not say when.

@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy: This is really a matter not deserving of 226 jurisdiction. Let her move a suit, adduce facts, prove her case ...Can inferences be drawn when you withhold the facts?

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy: Sunbeam case says that there can be no reconstruction of an unauthorised structure until court comes to positive finding that demolition was unlawful

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy: When Thopte case was decided, Section 354 did not deal with demolition.

Sunbeam only dealt with Thopte, and only with Section 351

The 24-hour notice referred to in Thopte is 351 notice. Sunbeam only deals with Thopte. Hence Sunbeam does not really deal with 354A at all

Only part of Sunbeam ruling that is relevant is that the SC said that reconstruction of demolished structures would only be allowed if the Court came to the positive find that the work was legal, Chinoy says.

Chinoy: Sunbeam, rather than help my friend, hurts him in a big way

Chinoy reads cases concerning malice.

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy, referring to judgments, submits: It can never be malice "in fact" where there is a corporation of a body of the State

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy: Kindly see how "malafide" comes in the pleadings.

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy reads submissions regarding how Ranaut is at loggerheads with the govt because of her comments as a public-spirited person, how it drew displeasure from "certain quarters" and "certain influential persons.

Chinoy: Is this a plea for malafide in fact?

#KanganaRanaut

Chinoy: (Petitioner refers to) "Certain people", "influential persons".. you need to say who is the person, who is displeased...

These sort of guarded and veiled inferences can't be drawn. It can't a malice in fact situation at all. A statutory body can never act malice in fact

Chinoy: This plea is by a petitioner who has singularly lacked in candour, who has carried out unlawful activity and who has refrained from saying when it was carried out.

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Chinoy: It (the petition) intends to send out one message and sends out another message.

This petition sends out a message that persons who make public posture can get away with carrying out unlawful work in a rampant manner

@mybmc
@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut

Saraf makes a submission countering Chinoy's argument that the Sunbeam case is not applicable to Section 354A of the BMC's Act.

He submits that he has already pointed out Bombay HC in Sub Vijay ruling has said that the third guideline in Thopte's case was applicable to Sec 354A

Saraf adds that the Bombay HC ruling has also said that even after the amendment to BMC Act and 354A, the Thopte guidelines would be binding on the Municipal Corporation.

Saraf further submits that it is the municipal's body's own case also that for ongoing work, Sec 351 is not applicable, 354A is applicable.

Saraf continues reading Sub Vijay International Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, MCGM.

The full judgment can be read here: casemine.com/judgement/in/5…

Saraf asserts that the guideline of 24-hour notice, 7 days after notice, photographs, panchnama laid down in Thopte's would still be binding for Sec 354A processes. These were modified in SC ruling of Sunbeam case.

Saraf: The existence of the word Section 351 (in Sunbeam) would not make a difference.

Chinoy: And also the absence of 354A anywhere in the whole judgment. Not a single reference!

Saraf: The municipal corporation has raised the same contention in Sub Vijay's case, how many times will they raise the same condition?

Court makes queries to BMC designated ward officer, who has appeared before the virtual court.

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc

#BombayHighCourt
#KanganaRanaut

Court: Why have you not annexed all photographs in this present case as done in the case of (....)

@mybmc officer says he has no response.

Court: So you have no answer.

Court continues making queries.

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc

#BombayHighCourt
#KanganaRanaut

Court refers to another case of demolition: So you went on site and gave the speaking order? Speaking order was prepared on-site?

@mybmc officer: Speaking order was prepared in office, but before that, we have taken photo.

HC: So would it be correct to say you have taken photo to show work is going on?

@mybmc officer: Yes

Court: In this case why have you have not taken photos to show work was going on? Again, if you have no answer you can tell us.

@mybmc officer: No

HC: Okay, you have no answer

Commenting further on an answer given by the @mybmc officer that they had to go ahead with certain processes because they did not have police forces, Court says,

Court: For every demolition, you don't take the police?

BMC officer: No, but If necessary we will call for them

Court, referring to another case: Why did you not take a panchnama and demolish it as you did in this case? Why did you come back?

Court: In the present case also, the police was there in large numbers

@mybmc official: That police were taken for our protection

Court, referring to another case: Before you went for demolition, you have not informed the police as you did in the present case?

Court: In Section 354A, you have to send a letter to the police?

@mybmc official: In critical cases, we do that

Court: What is "critical case?" How do you define critical case? In cases of celebrities it becomes a critical case?

@KanganaTeam

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Referring to another case, Court: Have you demolished or not?

@mybmc official: This is a case with internal plastering and internal work. The Reply was given Sept 9. He has stopped the work

If the person stops work, you do not demolish? the Court asks

If inside there is nothing to demolish, no, answers the @mybmc official

Court: They why was notice under 354A given?

@mybmc official: Because it was to stop the work and see what he is doing.

(In Marathi)

In another case, BMC official says notice was given on 5th. But since there was a demolition going on in another site, BMC did not demolish.

Court observes In the present case, you (BMC) gave notice on 7th and demolished already

(continuing in Marathi, translated:)

Court: In other cases, you gave notices on 4 and 5 September.

Court: In this case, you gave notice on 7th and demolished so soon. In another matter, notice was on 4th September, the same area, then why the delay in demolishing?

Court: When did you take these photographs in the present matter? Why no date and time?

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Court: When you demolish, don't you note time? How do we know this demolition is of 8th September?

BMC Officer: There is a note on page 12

Court: This note you can add today, or tomorrow as well.

(In Marathi)

Court: Did you take a panchnama for 5th Sept?

BMC Officer: No only inspection report. We have it saved on our server.

Court: Date?

BMC officer: 4th

Court: Can't happen.

Court: did you call the police?

BMC official: No

Court: You have no proof of the demolition

Court: Who took the photographs?

BMC: Field officer

Court: Where is he? Show his phone?

(in Marathi)

BMC: He is not here, he is in the suburb office

Court: Don't you have any report of the demolition?

BMC: No, it is not uploaded on the system

Court: Mr Sakare, here there is something absolutely fishy!

How come in the system, demolition is not shown on 8 (Sept)? It is only when we asked for the file it is prepared.

Is there any answer? Please ask him. Later he should not say he was not given an opportunity

Court: Only photos no date and time are shown, no demolition report.

He said demolition is on 4th... When we told him specifically show online, he says it is not there!

Court: We do not trust this report. We don't know what the Mukadam has done on-site.

Court: Check your other demolition reports. All have a date and time.

On hearing some whispering ensuing, Court adds (in English): We can hear the whispers, please stop whispering.

@KanganaTeam
@mybmc

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Court (in Marathi, to BMC official): National newspaper writes to you to please demolish (in some cases) so you proceed to demolish. Till then you did nothing.

Court reads out a document in the file. Asks what it is.

BMC official: The Complainant has annexed it.

Court notes another case where there was a gap between notice and the demolition.

In this case, notice on 4th, demolition on 14th: Court reads

Court is going through the tweets posted by @KanganaTeam as submitted by Saraf.

The date is given below the tweet, Saraf says. He adds that there is also an exchange on twitter between Ranaut and @rautsanjay61

On September 3, there is an exchange between @KanganaTeam and Respondent number 5, i.e. @rautsanjay61 : Saraf

#BombayHighCourt
#KanganaRanaut

Saraf refers to tweets by Ranaut between August 30, Sept 1 etc.

There was a derogatory post against her, which was liked by the Commissioner of Police handle.

Saraf refers to ensuing tweet by @KanganaTeam criticising the act of the handle for liking the tweet, the police response that it was not liked by the handle and that the screenshot is being examined etc.

Court: Looks like something has been going on since August 30.

Saraf for @KanganaTeam That is what I wanted to show to your Lordships.

He adds that the petitioner has been having issues for quite some time.

Chinoy: The case is that this was in retaliation to your (@KanganaTeam) tweet of the 5th, that is how your petition puts it

Court adjourns hearing for the day.

Bench tells Adv Pradeep Thorat for @rautsanjay61: Tomorrow, it will be your turn.

#BombayHighCourt will resume hearing petition by @KanganaTeam challenging @mybmc demolition of her property citing alleged illegal alterations tomorrow at 3 pm.

Court has asked that submissions start tomorrow on behalf of @rautsanjay61

#KanganaRanaut
#BombayHighCourt

Bombay HC hears Kangana Ranaut's plea challenging BMC demolition [LIVE UPDATES]

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…