In a major embarrassment for Union Minister and senior BJP leader Narayan Rane, the Bombay High Court on Tuesday ordered the demolition of illegal portions of his family-owned bungalow at Juhu in north-west Mumbai within two weeks.

While dismissing a plea seeking direction to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for regulation of unauthorised portions of the bungalow, a HC bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and Kamal Khata imposed costs of `10 lakh on the company to be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (MALSA).

The HC bench refused to entertain a prayer made by the petitioners’ counsel Shardul Singh seeking 6 weeks’ stay on the court’s order for demolition of the illegal portions of the bungalow within two weeks, in order to approach the Supreme Court.

Virtually pulling up the BMC for accepting the Rane family’s proposal for regularisation of the unauthorised portions, the judges noted, “If the application made by the petitioners for retention/regularisation is allowed to be considered by the Corporation, who is bent upon to consider and allow such application irrespective of the extent of violation of provisions of law committed by the petitioners, any such order passed by this court would amount to encouragement of the wholesale unauthorised construction carried out in fragrant violation of the Municipal Corporation Act, MRTP Act and Development Control Regulation and would over reach the earlier order of this court.”

“The petitioners have admittedly constructed about three times of sanctioned plan by utilising every inch of plot mandatorily required to be kept open for various purposes in accordance with the various provisions of law without obtaining permission from Fire Department for high rise buildings and also without obtaining prior clearance of Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA),” the HC bench observed.

“The proposed retention/regularisation of unauthorised work, if accepted, will amount to encouragement of the widespread/large scale violation of provisions of law and invite wrongdoer to carry out any extent of unauthorised construction in the City of Mumbai without any fear of penal action,” the HC bench said.

The HC said that it was “not impressed” with the arguments made by the petitioners’ counsel that unauthorised construction carried out by his client being used for residential purposes, and no prejudice would be caused to the Municipal Corporation or the members of public at large if the application for retention is allowed by the Municipal Corporation by permitting the petitioners to bring additional FSI.

The Rane family-owned company Real Estates Pvt Ltd had moved  the high court for direction to the BMC to consider the petitioners’ new application seeking regularisation of the bungalow situated at Juhu in north-west Mumbai.

The Rane family firm had filed the fresh regularisation application before BMC under Section 342 of the MMC Act which stipulates notifying the Commissioner for making any alteration or addition to an existing building.

The BMC had earlier issued a notice to Kaalkaa in March directing it to remove the alleged unauthorised work on the premises within 15 days failing which the corporation will demolish those portions and recover the charges from the owners/ occupiers.

However, Rane family-owned firm challenged the demolition notice in the High Court which had earlier protected the structure from demolition before June 24, till the application by Rane was heard by BMC.

Meanwhile, the BMC rejected the regularisation application on June 3. Since the protection granted by the High Court was expiring soon, Rane moved the high court for relief. On June 23, the High court rejected Ranes’ petition challenging the rejection order. After this, Ranes filed a second application before BMC, and moved the high court for directions.

When the plea in relation to the second application came up for hearing, the court had asked the BMC if a second such application under the BMC Act would be maintainable in the first place. The BMC told the court that the Rane owned company could file a second application for regularisation which would be considered by the civic body in accordance with the provisions of existing acts and regulations.

Holding that the second regularisation application “cannot be considered”, the HC bench said in its ruling given on Tuesday: “It is clear that the Municipal Corporation has accepted to consider and pass an order of regularisation irrespective of the order already passed earlier rejecting the application for retention under section 44 while dealing with the first application by accepting the order passed by the corporation and upheld by this court, by ignoring the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court and this court and also overlooking the provisions of law”.

“The corporation cannot be allowed to take such an inconsistent stand and more particularly when the earlier order had been upheld by this court,” the HC bench ruled.