The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai has filed an affidavit in the Bombay High Court one day after Kangana challenged the demolition at her bungalow in Pali Hill in suburban Bandra. The MCGM denied the allegation imposed on it that it undertook the demolition of illegal alterations at Kangana’s bungalow on Thursday.
The MCGM in its affidavit said that “The petitioner (Ranaut) is seeking to obfuscate and cover up her flagrantly illegal acts of unlawfully making substantial additions and alterations contrary to the sanctioned building plan, without any permission by making baseless and wild allegations of malafide.”
Counsel for MCGM said that "All demolition work has been stopped as soon as the court directed so. But we request the court to direct the petitioner to also maintain the status quo and not commence any other work in the said premises.”
The Counsel added that “Details of these unlawful alterations and additions were listed at (a) to (k) of the Notice issued to the Petitioner under Section 354A and included construction of new toilets (including in open chowk area and in the parking area), conversion of existing toilets into cabins/rooms, construction of pantry, kitchen, cabins, etc. The sanctioned Building Plan establishes beyond doubt that the aforesaid unlawful work has been carried out."
The MCGM in its affidavit further states that "Even in the present petition, the petitioner (Kangana) has not disputed the fact that she has carried out unlawful alterations and additions. The petitioner (Kangana) has only made false, baseless, and unwarranted allegations of harassment and malafide by the corporation.”
“No threatening or roughing up of security guards or anyone else was done by the officials while entering the premises”, said the Corporation.
The Corporation in its affidavit states that “ I submit that the Petitioners (Kangana) diverse allegations are only an attempt to obfuscate the material fact that the Petitioner has carried out substantial additions and alterations to/in the premises, contrary to the sanctioned plan. I submit that in view of this undisputed position, the petition should not be entertained and should be dismissed with cost.”
It further states that “The Petitioner (Kangana) has falsely stated that the Petitioner (Kangana) is residing at Bungalow No. 5, Chetak Row House No. 41, Nargis Dutt Road, Pali Hill, Bandra West, Mumbai-400050. However, the letters annexed at Exhibit A-4 and A-5 to the petition record the residential address of the Petitioner (Kangana) as DB Breeze,5'h Floor, opp. Khar Gymkhana, 16'h road, Khar (W), Mumbai 52. The petitioner (Kangana) at ground E of the petition has also admitted that the "said bungalow was used by the Petitioner (Kangana) as a place of work." and has on that basis claimed that the demolition allegedly violated Article 19(1)(g)."
The MCGM called the petition false and baseless and sated “I reiterate that the petition in-fact constitutes an abuse of process inasmuch as that the petitioner (Kangana) who has undisputedly carried out extensive illegal unlawful additions and alterations, contrary to the sanctioned Building plan, should not be permitted to seek relief by approaching this Hon’ble Court by a writ petition under Article 226.”
