Mumbai: Union minister Narayan Rane on Monday approached the Bombay High Court challenging the notices issued to him and his family by the Mumbai civic body over the alleged unauthorized alterations made in his bungalow in suburban Juhu. Rane has sought to quash the notices (February 25, March 4, and March 16, 2022) issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the orders passed by the designated officer of the corporation, terming it as perverse, illegal, and in violation of his fundamental rights.
The plea was mentioned for urgent hearing on Monday before a division bench headed by Justice A A Sayed by Rane's advocate Amogh Singh.
The bench said it would hear the petition on Tuesday. The Shiv Sena-controlled BMC had last week issued a notice to Rane, a BJP MP, directing him to remove the alterations made to the bungalow 'Adish'. The civic body said if the alterations were not removed, it would be compelled to demolish the same and recover the charges from the owner.
Rane's petition claimed that the BMC notice has been issued in the name of a company 'Artline Properties Pvt Ltd', which was amalgamated and merged with another company in which Rane and his family held shares. Being the beneficiary owners of the company, Rane and his family resided in the 'Adish' Bungalow but since the premises were owned by the company, the petition was being filed through the company, the plea stated.
It added that the first notice was sent on February 25, in the name of the owners/occupiers to show cause how the alleged unauthorized additions/ changes in usage of the premises were not in contravention to the approved plans. Rane's wife Neelam Rane and son Nilesh Rane, erstwhile directors of Artline Properties, responded to the notice highlighting the "malafide intention".
The reply stated that the notice had been issued after nine years of completion of the building. Following this, the erstwhile directors were called for a hearing before the BMC officer. Meanwhile, a second notice was issued on March 4, 2022. Simultaneously, the company also made an application for retention of portions of the premises alleged to be in a contravention by making payment of? 8,790 as stipulated by BMC.
The petition said that in the application, the company had clarified that there was no contravention of any regulation and the entire premise was within the permissible FSI (Floor Space Index) limit. Despite this, the BMC's designated officer passed an order based on the first notice directing the alleged unauthorized work to be removed from the premises within 15 days.
Thereafter the second scheduled hearing also took place and the second identical order was passed.
PTI
