The Bombay High Court on Tuesday permitted Kangana Ranaut to add Shiv Sena’s chief spokesperson Sanjay Raut as a party in her plea against the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) over the demolition of a part of her Bandra office.
Reacting to the same, Sanjay Raut took to his official Twitter handle and wrote, “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.”
Kangana 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 property after which the BMC filed an application stating that Kangana had made ‘illegal alterations’ without approvals, which she has denied.
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.
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.