• Sign In/Sign Up
  • Menu
  • +Clients Back

    • Get Free Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
  • +Lawyers

    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • News/Articles
  • Bombay HC Quashes BMC’s Demolition Order Against Kangana Ranaut’s Building As ‘Actuated By Malice’: Bombay HC

Latest News

Back

Bombay HC Quashes BMC’s Demolition Order Against Kangana Ranaut’s Building As ‘Actuated By Malice’: Bombay HC

Courtesy/By: Sanjeev Sirohi  |  02 Dec 2020     Views:521

As anticipated, the Bombay High Court in Kangana Ranaut’s case titled Ms. Kangana Ranaut vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 4 others in Writ Petition (ST.) No. 3011 of 2020 delivered on November 27, 2020, rose up to the occasion and in a huge respite to eminent Hindi film actress, Kangana Ranaut quashed the notice and order issued by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to demolish her bungalow. The High Court came to the palpable conclusion that the order of BMC was “actuated by legal malice”. BMC must admit what Bombay High Court has pointed out so explicitly, elegantly and effectively!

To start with, this extremely laudable, latest, learned and landmark judgment authored by Justice SJ Kathawalla for himself and Justice RI Chagla sets the ball rolling by first and foremost observing in para 1 that, “The above Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner – Ms. Kangana Ranaut against Respondent No. 1 – Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (‘MCGM’), Respondent No. 2 – Executive Engineer ( B & F ), Respondent No. 3 – Government of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Respondent No. 4 – Shri Bhagyavant Late, Designated Officer of MCGM and Respondent No. 5 – Shri Sanjay Raut, Member of the Rajya Sabha. Respondent No. 5 is the Chief spokesperson of Shiv Sena, a political party which is a part of the Government of Maharashtra, and which Party is also the ruling party in MCGM. Respondent No. 5 is also the Executive Editor of Marathi Daily Newspaper ‘Saamna’.”

While stating the relevant facts required to be set out at the outset, the Bench then observes in para 3.1 that, “The Advocate for the Petitioner first moved this Court at around 11.30 a.m. on 9th September 2020, and sought circulation of the Writ Petition at the earliest. Since the MCGM had filed a Caveat, he was asked to give notice to the MCGM and the hearing was vexed within an hour i.e. at 12.30 p.m. The unaffirmed Petition, being filed in extreme urgency and when the Petitioner was not available in Mumbai, lacked material particulars/averments and was incomplete. The Petitioner was, therefore, granted liberty to amend the Writ Petition at the time of granting ad-interim reliefs on 9th September 2020 and also on 10th September 2020. Pursuant thereto, the Petition was amended. In the amended Writ Petition, the Petitioner reiterated her allegation that the demolition carried out by MCGM was malafide/malicious, with ulterior motives. In support thereof, she interalia relied on a video clip recording the interview of Shri Sanjay Raut, wherein he had allegedly abused the Petitioner. They also relied on the news report pertaining to the demolition of her bungalow, captioned ‘Ukkhad Diya', meaning - ‘uprooted’ published in the Marathi daily newspaper ‘Saamna’ of 10th September 2020 (i.e. the day after the demolition), of which newspaper Shri Raut is the Executive Editor. Therefore, by our Order dated 22nd September 2020, the Petitioner was allowed to join Shri Raut as party Respondent to the above Writ Petition. It was also alleged by the Petitioner in the above Writ Petition, that Shri Bhagyavant Late, Designated Officer of MCGM, had with malafide and malicious intent, issued the impugned Notice dated 7th September 2020, followed by an Order of Demolition dated 9th September 2020, and proceeded to demolish the bungalow of the Petitioner. Therefore, by our said Order dated 22nd September 2020, Shri Late was also allowed to be joined in his personal capacity, as party Respondent to the above Writ Petition. Consequently, Shri Bhagyawant Late and Shri Sanjay Raut are joined as Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, respectively, to the above Writ Petition.”

Be it noted, it is then very rightly pointed out in para 17.14.4. that, “The object and purpose of Section 354A is stoppage of unauthorized ongoing work (which is described in Section 342) by a notice and its removal if despite such notice the noticee does not stop the unauthorized ongoing work or produce authorization within twenty-four hours. The purpose is not the demolition of unauthorized work already carried out (in contravention of Sections 342 or 347). The State action of demolition of works under Section 354A in the present case is thus clearly for a purpose not authorized by the Act. There is no reasonable or probable cause or excuse for the State action complained of and it has been carried out, as we shall demonstrate presently, wrongfully and willfully.”     

Truth be told, it is then rightly postulated in para 17.14.6. that, “Coming now to the wrongfulness of the State action, it is important to note at the outset that anything which is not authorized by law and which infringes a citizen’s rights is wrongful on the part of the State. As we have seen above, assuming that the subject structures were illegal and amounted to unauthorized works as per Sections 342 and 347 of the Act, it was the Petitioner’s right to show cause why they should not be removed, altered or pulled down. Even after passing of a final Order for removal, alteration or pulling down of these works, upon her failure to show sufficient cause, it was open to the Petitioner to approach the MCGM for regularization of such works under Section 53(3) of the MRTP Act or alternatively, approach the Court for preventing the threatened action. To the extent she was prevented from doing so, the action of the MCGM in taking precipitate steps under Section 354A, as we have noted above, can only be described as wrongful. But what really aggravates the wrongfulness and lends further credence to the case of malice in law, is the manner in which the whole action was carried out as we have described above.”   

More damningly, it is then envisaged in para 17.14.7. that, “The manner in which the action was carried out, as we have noted above, leaves hardly any manner of doubt that the purpose for using the provision of Section 354A in the instant case was not only unauthorized, considering the distinction between Sections 351 and 354A, but more sinister than that, namely, to prevent the Petitioner from taking recourse to her legal remedies. The whole attempt on the part of the Respondent - MCGM and its officers was to somehow present the Petitioner with a fait accompli, leaving her practically no time to seek redressal of her grievance through Courts by means of preventive action.”

In essence, it is then summed up in para 17.14.8. that, “That sums up the case against the Respondents of malice in law. The MCGM, which is an organ of the State, has done something “without lawful excuse”; it has proceeded to act “wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause”; its act can only be described as a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of a citizen; the true object of the act clearly appears to be to reach an end different from the one for which the power was entrusted to it. The exercise of power can be summed up as bad in law and lacking in bonafides. It is nothing but malice in law.”

Quite remarkably, the Bench then minces no words to hold in para 18.5 that, “In any case, it is settled law as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the availability of an alternative remedy is only a self-imposed restraint and not any bar on the jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has held that the High Court is justified in exercising its powers to the exclusion of all other remedies when it finds that the action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We have reached a categorical conclusion, as discussed above, that the action of the State is arbitrary and unreasonable and informed by malice in law. So far as this conclusion is concerned, in the present case in view of the clear facts and evidence made available before this Court, no disputed question of facts can be said to have arisen. Secondly, merely because disputed questions of facts arise, a party cannot be relegated in every such case to a lengthy, dilatory and expensive process of a Civil Suit against a public body, particularly if the action is highhanded and illegal. In fact, the Courts have frowned upon public bodies raising such contentions and held that State instrumentalities ought not to raise technical pleas to defeat the rights and legitimate claims of a citizen.”

What is equally remarkable is as put forth in para 18.10 that, “We are of the view, that this well-settled law, when applied to the facts of the present case, makes it apparent that the objection as to the maintainability of the Writ Petition is clearly an afterthought, in order to defeat the Petitioner’s rights. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an ex-facie illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and highhanded and malafide action of MCGM ignoring statutory provisions and guidelines of the Courts as well as of its own Circulars and the said action is an abuse of power and authority. The Petitioner therefore is fully justified in approaching this Court for redressal of her grievances and the protection of her rights.”   

More forthrightly, it is then elucidated in para 19.4 that, “As we have come to a clear conclusion that the impugned notice under Section 354A of the Act and the action of demolition following it, are actuated by malafides, in any event, involve clear malice in law, causing a substantial injury to the Petitioner, we would be perfectly justified, on the basis of the law stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunbeam Hightech Developers (supra), to order compensation against responsible Respondents. Any such Order must be preceded by an estimate prepared by an approved valuer of the damage caused to the Petitioner’s property. We would therefore have a valuer appointed for the purpose of preparing such estimate. Both parties, i.e. the Petitioner and the MCGM, shall be heard by the valuer whilst making his report of valuation. We would reserve our further Orders on such report being submitted by the valuer. We would also pass appropriate Orders on the recovery of any part of such compensation from individual officers of the MCGM when ordering for payment of such compensation.”

Finally, it is then held in para 20 that, “Based on the foregoing observations, and being convinced that the impugned notice dated 7th September 2020 and the impugned speaking Order of demolition dated 9th September 2020 issued/passed by Shri Late / MCGM deserves to be quashed and set aside, the following Order is passed:

(i) The impugned notice dated 7th September 2020 along with the speaking Order of demolition dated 9th September 2020 are quashed and set aside.

(ii) The Petitioner is allowed to take such steps as are required to make the said bungalow habitable so that the Petitioner can immediately start occupying and using the same. However, to the extent any demolished portion requires planning permission and such permission in not in place reconstruction of such portion can only be made either in compliance with the sanctioned plan or after seeking approval of the MCGM for the work proposed. In the event an application is made, the MCGM shall decide the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such application/plan.

(iii) As regards the area, which is not demolished by the MCGM, if the MCGM proposes to take any action, it may issue a notice giving 7 days time to the Petitioner to respond to / comply with the same. In the meantime, the Petitioner shall also be at liberty to make an application seeking regularization of the works already carried out but not demolished under Section 53 (3) of the MRTP Act, 1966. In case any such application is made no further steps in response to the notice shall be taken by the MCGM before disposal of such application and a copy of the Order provided to the Petitioner as well as her Advocate.

(iv) M/s. Shetgiri and Associates, Architects, Engineers, Interior Designers and Valuers are appointed as the Surveyors / Valuers to value and determine the extent and value of damage and loss caused to the Petitioner and

(v) submit their report to this Court on 9th March 2021 to enable the Court to award compensation to the Petitioner. The Surveyors / Valuers shall hear both parties i.e. the Petitioner and the MCGM before making their report. The charges of the Surveyors / Valuers shall initially be borne by the Petitioner.

(vi) Liberty to the parties to apply in case of any difficulty.

(vii) The Writ Petition to appear for further Orders on 9th March 2021.”

 

Before concluding, let us have a cursory look at some of the notable observations from this notable judgment. They are as follows:-

  1. The background of the case lends credence to the petitioner’s (Kangana) case that the demolition action was malafide and premeditated to target her for her tweets and statements.
  2. There are materials to indicate that the action of demolition smacks of malafides.
  3. There is a case of legal malice for this court to issue a writ.
  4. The manner in which demolition was carried out was unauthorized and sinister to prevent the petitioner from taking recourse to legal remedies.
  5. There was an attempt to present the petitioner with a case of ‘fait accompli’.
  6. The action of BMC can only be regarded as an action in deliberate disregard of the rights of a citizen.
  7. The impugned notice and the action of the demolition are actuated by malice.
  8. The building of Kangana Ranaut was an existing construction.
  9. The petitioner (Kangana Ranaut) should exercise restraint while airing views on public platforms.
  10. However, irresponsible comments made by a citizen are best ignored by a State. No action by State for such follies of a citizen can lie except within the four corners of the law.
  11. By no means, the colourable exercise of a power or resort to such person or to his/her property can be permitted in any civil society. Such actions are the very antithesis of law.

                                No doubt, Bombay High Court in its 166-page judgment has very rightly rapped the BMC on its knuckles and also has laid down the correct position on all the issues raised before it. BMC has no option now but to comply with it accordingly and in future also exercise extreme caution in such cases! If the Bombay High Court while ruling in her favour has asked her to exercise restraint, it has also minced no words in saying categorically that Sanjay Raut’s conduct doesn’t befit a leader. Both Raut and Kangana must mend themselves and their conduct accordingly as directed by the Bombay High Court!  


Courtesy/By: Sanjeev Sirohi  |  02 Dec 2020     Views:521

News Updates

The Legal Framework of Bail Conditions in India: B...
25 Oct 2024     Views:6080
Changing an Arbitrator Mid-Proceeding: Legal Frame...
23 Oct 2024     Views:5503
IMF Retains India's FY25 GDP Growth Forecast at 7%...
22 Oct 2024     Views:5484
The Evolving Landscape of Russian Anti-Suit Injunc...
22 Oct 2024     Views:5278
Hyundai’s IPO vs Competitors: How the Auto Giant...
15 Oct 2024     Views:5302
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Post Decree...
14 Oct 2024     Views:4947
SEBI Issues Checklist for AIFs, Their Managers, an...
08 Oct 2024     Views:5322
The Siemens v. Russian Railroads Case...
07 Oct 2024     Views:5312
Empowering Minds in Confinement: Bombay HC’s Lan...
03 Oct 2024     Views:5431
The Dynamics of Novation in Contract Law and Its I...
02 Oct 2024     Views:5617
SEBI Establishes Consistent Evaluation Standards f...
01 Oct 2024     Views:5327
Landmark Decision by Austrian Supreme Court on Arb...
30 Sep 2024     Views:5293
Key Considerations for Indian Commercial Claims...
25 Sep 2024     Views:5244
Boom or Bust: Africa’s Oil Giants Face Declining...
23 Sep 2024     Views:5367
The Growing Role of Arbitration in Intellectual Pr...
23 Sep 2024     Views:5320
Supreme Court Greenlights Sub-Classification of SC...
20 Sep 2024     Views:5651
SEBI's Employee Grievances Prompt Formation of Wor...
19 Sep 2024     Views:5477
Environmental Law in India: Challenges and Opportu...
18 Sep 2024     Views:6320
Navigating the New Legal Landscape of Exclusive Ju...
16 Sep 2024     Views:5440
The Anatomy of Joint Venture Breakups in India (an...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5787
The Integration of ESG in India's M&A Landscape...
31 Jul 2024     Views:5683
Future of AI in Legal Systems and Conflict Resolut...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5872
World Health Assembly Revises International Health...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5726
Pokemon GO Fans Concerned Over Restrictive New Ter...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5838
Landmark Judgment on Setting Aside Arbitration Awa...
21 Jul 2024     Views:5627
Understanding the Process of Issuing Summons in In...
11 Jul 2023     Views:9021
Understanding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)...
10 Jul 2023     Views:7561
Understanding the Mental Health Act in India: A St...
09 Jul 2023     Views:7600
Combating Manual Scavenging in India: A Call for S...
07 Jul 2023     Views:7391
Impleadment in Supreme Court of India: A Comprehen...
05 Jul 2023     Views:8360
Unraveling the Distinction: Culpable Homicide vs. ...
03 Jul 2023     Views:7698
Understanding the Difference between Money Bills a...
02 Jul 2023     Views:6234
Understanding the Civil Procedure Code in India: A...
01 Jul 2023     Views:7017
The Rights of Criminals in India: Upholding Justic...
30 Jun 2023     Views:6276
Exploring the Differences between the US and India...
29 Jun 2023     Views:6280
What to Do If the Police Refuse to Register Your F...
26 Jun 2023     Views:6531
Timeline of Environmental Protocols: A Global Effo...
25 Jun 2023     Views:6229
How to Deal with Cheque Bounce Cases in India...
24 Jun 2023     Views:6212
Pursuing a Lucrative Litigation Career in Indian L...
22 Jun 2023     Views:6258
Understanding the Emergency Provisions of India: S...
21 Jun 2023     Views:6227
Environment Legislation in India: A Comprehensive ...
20 Jun 2023     Views:6583
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
18 Jun 2023     Views:6076
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
17 Jun 2023     Views:6108
Timeline of Same-Sex Laws in India: A Journey Towa...
16 Jun 2023     Views:6553
Sir Creek Dispute and Legal Implications...
15 Jun 2023     Views:6754
Jurisprudence of NDPS Laws in India: A Comprehensi...
14 Jun 2023     Views:6327
Impleadment Proceedings: A Comprehensive Guide to ...
13 Jun 2023     Views:6765
Understanding Continuing Mandamus: A Powerful Judi...
12 Jun 2023     Views:8743
Res Judicata: The Doctrine of Finality in Legal Pr...
10 Jun 2023     Views:6760
Mastering the Art of Legal Drafting: A Comprehensi...
08 Jun 2023     Views:6425
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CP...
07 Jun 2023     Views:12080
Understanding the Laws of War: Protecting Humanity...
03 Jun 2023     Views:6143
Understanding the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC...
02 Jun 2023     Views:6998
The National Drug and Psychotropic Substances (NDP...
01 Jun 2023     Views:6572
A Step-by-Step Guide: How to File an FIR in India...
31 May 2023     Views:6282
Zero FIR: An Effective Tool for Prompt Criminal Ju...
30 May 2023     Views:6511
Unveiling the Dissent of Judges in Judicial Judgme...
28 May 2023     Views:6148
Environmental Laws in India: Safeguarding Nature f...
25 May 2023     Views:6598
The Recusal of Supreme Court of India Judges from ...
24 May 2023     Views:6268
Understanding the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Cour...
23 May 2023     Views:6713
Article 142 of the Constitution of India: A Compre...
22 May 2023     Views:6929
Landmark Judgments in Arbitration Law in India: A...
21 May 2023     Views:7159
Landmark Cases on Anticipatory Bail in India: A Pa...
20 May 2023     Views:11049
Embracing the Future: How AI is Revolutionizing th...
18 May 2023     Views:6366
Understanding Narcotics Laws in India: A Comprehen...
17 May 2023     Views:6233
Understanding Indian Laws on Cross-Border Transact...
16 May 2023     Views:7366
ADR mechanism of legal adjudication in India...
15 May 2023     Views:6080
Validity of foreign arbitral award in India throug...
14 May 2023     Views:6092
Scope of Section 151 CPC...
13 May 2023     Views:7674
Detailed Overview on Section 482 of Crpc...
11 May 2023     Views:6619
Scope of Decree under CPC...
10 May 2023     Views:6169
Legal development of Arbitration Laws in India....
09 May 2023     Views:6214
Arbitration Laws in India...
07 May 2023     Views:6161
Impact of COVID-19 on Legal Industry...
06 May 2023     Views:8262
Chargesheet not having authority's valid sanction ...
02 May 2023     Views:6443
Same-Sex Marriage in India...
30 Apr 2023     Views:6081
National Commission for Women...
27 Apr 2023     Views:5934
Law making process of India....
26 Apr 2023     Views:7023
Bail Provisions in India...
25 Apr 2023     Views:5957
Life imprisonment in Criminal Law in India...
24 Apr 2023     Views:6377
Contempt of Court...
23 Apr 2023     Views:6213
The collegium system of Judiciary in India....
22 Apr 2023     Views:5900
Remarriage before Expiry of Limitation Period to f...
21 Apr 2023     Views:5892
Need for strict measure of NDPS laws in India....
20 Apr 2023     Views:6054
Nature of Offence under Section 138 of NI Act is Q...
19 Apr 2023     Views:8493
Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Plaint cannot be rejected m...
18 Apr 2023     Views:7100
Mediation: At the Dawn of Golden Age organized at ...
16 Apr 2023     Views:6175
Central Government's motto should be mediate, not ...
15 Apr 2023     Views:5890
Ambedkar Jayanti Celebrations...
14 Apr 2023     Views:6100
Supreme Court of India calls for Preventive Measur...
12 Apr 2023     Views:5661
Pursuing LL.M is not break in Law Practice, Rules ...
11 Apr 2023     Views:5884
Law should take into consideration realities of co...
10 Apr 2023     Views:5712
Delhi High Court said that peeping into public bat...
08 Apr 2023     Views:6315
Delhi High Court denies bails to AAP's Satyendra J...
06 Apr 2023     Views:6436
Supreme Court’s Triple Talaq Judgement Would App...
30 Jan 2023     Views:6162
Article 311(1) | An Order of Removal From Service ...
26 Jan 2023     Views:6638
Leaders shouldn't disrespect the President or Pri...
17 Jan 2023     Views:5943
New bench will hear Ashwini Upadhyay's Supreme Cou...
15 Jan 2023     Views:6082
Person Who Drove Rashly with the Knowledge that it...
12 Jan 2023     Views:6673
The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot b...
11 Jan 2023     Views:6408
FIND A LAWYER




FIND A LAW SCHOOL



Most Read News Articles

  • Sabrimala Verdict (28 sept 2018) - A End of Taboo.
    On 07 Oct 2020    Views:96396
  • Case Analysis: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India
    On 11 Dec 2020    Views:73975
  • Case Analysis: THE BERUBARI UNION CASE
    On 14 Dec 2020    Views:71388
  • DOCTRINE OF ELECTION UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
    On 08 Jul 2020    Views:70523
  • A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88)
    On 08 Nov 2020    Views:59889
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1128 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

Lawsisto Direct

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.