[LIVE-UPDATES] Hearing On Kangana Ranaut's Plea Against Demolition of Her Office Building

Chinoy : There is complete lack of candour on the part of the petitioner as to whether the work was done and when the work was done.

Chinoy : The Court has to look at conduct of the petitioner and analyze the issue in the context of her actions.

The bench remarks that this issue (of quicker response) may be relevant on the issue of whether the action was malafides.

Chinoy : Malafides has to be analyzed in the context of petitioner's actions. You have to come to court with clean hands.

Chinoy : I agree that there is a quicker response in this case when compared to other cases. But that is not an answer. You cannot carry out unauthorized constructions

Chinoy : When she can remember all other public issues, how come your memory fails you in this work, which is carried out with lakhs and lakhs of rupees over several weeks!.

Chinoy : When you build toilets in an open chowk, it is an FSI issue. When you amalgamate your bedroom with another bedroom, it is not a simple matter. 

Justice R I Chagla asks if the power of the Corporation is not to stop the work.

Chinoy replies Ranaut's reply was that no work was going on, which was clearly wrong, and so there was no need to wait further.

The bench remarks that laypeople may not realize the distinction between Section 351 and 354A.

Chinoy says the reply only need to say when the work started and whether the work had permission and need not go into Sections.

"In this day and age, when you can tweet all the way from Mohali, you can surely tell your advocate when the work started", Chinoy says in reference to the argument that the first reply lacked details as she was away.

Chinoy : There is not even one word in the petition about when these alterations and additions from the plan were made. As per Sunbeam judgment of SC, these works needs prior permission after submitting plans.