Bombay HC disposes of Narayan Rane’s plea after Maharashtra govt withdraws Juhu bungalow demolition order

A division bench of Justices A A Sayed and M S Karnik was hearing a plea filed by Rane through his company seeking to quash the March 21 order or communication by the sub-divisional officer (SDO), Western suburbs, through the District Collector.

The plea said the communication had been issued in the name of Artline Properties Private Limited. As per the National Company Law Tribunal’s 2017 order, Artline was amalgamated and merged with petitioner company Kaalkaa Real Estate, in which Rane’s family holds shares. As owners of the company, the Rane family resided in the bungalow. However, as the premises were owned by the company, the plea was filed through it, the petition said.

The said order directed the that alleged unauthorised constructions be removed or the officer, on his own motion, shall remove the same on March 28 at 11 am under March 23, 2011 Government Resolution (GR) which provided District Coastal Zone Monitoring Committee (DCZMC) to take suo motu cognizance of CRZ violations.

The company, through advocate Aagam Doshi, said that the GR in no manner grants power to DCZMC to act as planning authority for coastal areas or to exercise any statutory powers and it only empowered the DCZMC to refer cases to concerned authorities to take action under said GR.

“The concerned GR does not apply to matters relating to building permissions and the same are regulated only by provisions of Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act and Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, therefore state’s action was uncalled for,” Rane’s plea stated.

The petitioner said that there was no hearing conducted prior to passing the impugned order and the same was passed without any jurisdiction or powers and in an arbitrary, perverse and illegal manner.

“The acts of the respondent authorities are clearly violative of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner and its shareholders / beneficial owners enshrined under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution and hence liable to be set aside. The impugned Order is passed in complete contravention to the principles of natural justice,” the plea said.

Senior Advocate Milind Sathe told the court that the respondent authorities have no authority to pass the impugned order.

Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni representing state government made a statement and said, “Reserving right to take action, if as also ‘as and when’ found requisite, albeit, in accordance with law the March 21 order is hereby withdrawn. All contentions of all the parties to the present proceedings, be expressly kept open for consideration if as also ‘as and when’ such action is taken.”

Kumbhakoni also said that with his statement, the cause of action in filing present plea did not survive and therefore the plea be disposed of as infructuous by keeping contentions of the parties expressly open. The bench took the statement on record and disposed of the plea.

On March 22, the High Court had granted relief to Union Minister and BJP leader Narayan Rane and directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) not to take any coercive action against him till the civic body decides on his regularisation application pertaining to the alleged illegal construction at his Juhu bungalow.

The High Court had said that in the event an order passed by BMC is against or adverse to the petitioner, then no coercive steps be taken for three weeks from the date of receipt of such an order by the petitioner.