The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) on Thursday (September 10) justified its action on actor Kangana Ranaut’s properties as it told the Bombay High Court that the actor had been carrying out “substantial alterations” in her Bandra property in violation of the sanctioned plan and its action of demolition was without any “malafide” intentions.
Related news: Kangana ko ‘gussa kyon aata hai’?
The High Court has adjourned the matter for further hearing till September 22. The court had stayed the BMC action on Wednesday. The court noted that the “petition was filed in haste” and allowed the actor to make amendments to it by next Monday.
A division bench of Justices S J Kathawalla and R I Chagla, however, did not buy the BMC’s argument as it observed that the BMC’s action “prima facie does not appear to be bonafide and smacks of malafide”. The bench told the civic body to file an affidavit in response to the plea. The restraining order on demolition will continue until further hearing.
Replying to Kangana’s explanation in the court, the BMC said the actor had made “false, baseless, unwarranted allegations” and she should not be permitted to seek protection for such “unlawful work” by approaching the high court.
The BMC told the court that the actor’s claim that no work was ongoing at the said property is false. It showed photographs taken of the property on Tuesday (September 7) where workmen were seen with implements and materials. The BMC appealed to the court to not to grant relief to the actor.
The BMC also told the court that it gave the petitioner (Kangana) an opportunity to produce any permission or authorisation of the construction work as per law, which was later demolished.
Kangana’s counsel Advocate Rizwan Siddique sought time to respond to the BMC’s affidavit and to amend the petition.
Kangana recently compared “Mumbai to Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK)” which miffed Maharashtra CM Uddhav Thackeray, who got into a ward of words with the actor on Twitter. BMC’s action on Kangana’s properties followed soon after which made many believe it was an “act of revenge”.