Earlier, the court refused Rane’s request to maintain the status quo for six weeks to approach the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea by a company owned by Union minister and BJP leader Narayan Rane challenging a Bombay High Court order that directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to demolish the unauthorised portions at his eight-storey bungalow in Juhu.
A bench of Justices Sanjay K Kaul and Abhay S Oka granted three months to the firm to demolish the structures and granted liberty to the BMC to take action as per law later.
The high court on September 20 dismissed the firm’s plea seeking a direction to the BMC to consider its second application for regularising the structures at the Juhu bungalow. Justices Ramesh D Dhanuka and Kamal R Khata of the high court then directed the civic body to demolish the portions within two weeks. The bench observed it was clear that the BMC had ignored principles laid down by the Supreme Court and the high court.
As per the firm’s plea, the architect had filed a new application for regularisation in view of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034, considering the floor space index of the entire plot, as was originally factored for granting the permission to get an occupation certificate. The firm said it was not part of the first application and added that it restricted itself to applying for the regularisation or retention of land measuring 532.18 sq m.
The court had said allowing the BMC to consider a second application would be an “encouragement of wholesale unauthorised construction.” It also imposed a cost of Rs 10 lakh on the firm to be deposited within two weeks. The court also refused Rane’s request to maintain the status quo for six weeks to approach the Supreme Court.
Rane approached the apex court with a special leave petition for setting aside the high court order. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and advocates Satish Maneshinde, Shardul Singh, Prerana Gandhi and Shreeyas Lalit argued for Rane before the apex court. The court, however, dismissed the petition.