Sanjay Raut reacts to being added as party in Kangana Ranaut’s plea against BMC: This wouldn’t deter me from fighting for the pride of my city – Times of India
Reacting to the same, Raut took to his official Twitter handle to say, “Case by an actress in Hon. High Court is about demolition of illegal structure by BMC which is an independent body and Demand is to make RS MP Sanjay Raut a party! From Babri case to standing for Marathi pride, I have faced several cases! This wouldn’t deter me from fighting for the pride of my city and my Maharashtra.”
Case by an actrss in Hon.High Court is abt demolitn of illegl structre by BMC whch is an indpndnt body & Demnd is 2… https://t.co/wwDBFzVbXU
— Sanjay Raut (@rautsanjay61) 1600776167000
The HC told the actress’ lawyer that since she has submitted a DVD of Raut’s speech and if she is relying on it to argue her case, he should be given an opportunity to be heard.
Ranaut had filed a petition in court on September 9 when the BMC demolished parts of her Pali Hill- office in her absence. The court had ordered a stay at the actor’s property after which the BMC filed an application stating that Ranaut had made ‘illegal alterations’ without approvals, a charge she has denied.
A bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and R I Chagla also allowed Ranaut to add Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) H-ward’s designated officer Bhagyavant Late as a party to let him respond to any allegations that the actress makes against him.
In her rejoinder affidavit, she claimed that on the day she had been served a notice by the BMC on the alleged illegal construction, several other property owners in the vicinity of her property, including fashion designer Manish Malhotra, were served similar notices. While Malhotra and the others were granted seven days to respond, she was given just 24 hours.
Her reply was rejected and the demolition carried out.
On Tuesday, the bench said the BMC must clarify when Malhotra and others named in Ranaut’s affidavit were served with the illegal construction notices, and if any of those structures have been demolished yet. The bench also said both parties will have to argue on the amount of time that should have been given to Ranaut to respond to the BMC’s demolition notice issued under section 354 (A) of the Municipal Corporation Act.
The court also directed the BMC to file its response to Ranaut’s rejoinder affidavit by Thursday.
The direction came after BMC’s lawyer, senior counsel Aspi Chinoy, said Ranaut had made some new statements in her affidavit. He said while earlier Ranaut maintained that the alleged structural changes had been made some years ago in consonance with the BMC’s sanction plan, in her affidavit she had denied having made any structural changes to her bungalow.
Last week, the BMC, through its counsel, filed an affidavit responding to Ranaut’s petition. It said the actress had made major structural changes to the building without the civic body’s approvals. Therefore, its officials were merely following the rule of law in demolishing these alterations on September 9.
The civic body had urged the high court to dismiss Ranaut’s plea and impose a cost upon her for filing the petition, which it said was an “abuse” of the process of law.
The high court is likely to further hear the matter on Wednesday.