[LIVE-UPDATES] Hearing On Kangana Ranaut's Plea Against Demolition of Her Office Building
Saraf concludes the arguments.
J Kathawalla tells BMC's lawyer Chinoy that the bench does not want to have the phones and that it is interested only in the files (of the official who claimed to have taken the photos of the building).
Petitioner has really been wronged in this case. Her house has been demolished without following procedure established by law : Kangana's lawyer Saraf.
Compensation under writ jurisdiction is to make monetary amends for the breach of public duty and is in the nature of exemplary damages for the violation of fundamental rights : Saraf refers to precedents.
Saraf now referring to SC decisions on payment of compensation under writ jurisdiction.
The SC has held (in Sun Beam case) that even if the construction is unauthorized, officials are lible to pay compensation if there are procedural violations : Saraf, Kangana's lawyer.
Saraf further submits that the damage suffered by his client should be fully compensated.
"According to me, the damage is Rs 2 crores", he submits.
On the reliefs, Saraf submits that Kangana be permitted to make the building habitable and if necessary, to make applications for regularization.
J Kathawalla : How much time you need to make the building habitable?
Saraf says he will reply after getting instructions.
The BMC took the objection in their sur-rejoinder. In any case, the court is now at the stage of the final hearing. So, the stand taken by the BMC is not fair : Kangana's lawyer Saraf.
If there is arbitrary or unreasonable action by state violating Article 14, courts can consider writ petition under Art 226, even though some disputed questions of fact are involved, if elaborate evidence is not required : Saraf quotes from precedents.
Saraf now responding to the objection raised by BMC as to the maintainability of the writ petition.
Merely because some disputed questions of fact are involved, it cannot be said that writ is not maintainable, he submits.