Kangana Ranaut Alleges Bias By Mumbai Civic Body; Says Her Neighbour Manish Malhotra Was Given 7 Days To Respond To Demolition Notice [Read Affidavit]

When the actor amended her petition and alleged vendetta against her by "those in power" and sought Rs.2 Crore for damages caused to her due to the demolition of 40% of the said property, the Municipal Corporation filed an additional affidavit stating that Ranaut was not even denying brazenly making illegal alterations and additions to the said property against the sanctioned plan and was misleading the people by making allegations against MCGM.

In a 15-page rejoinder, the 33-year-old actor has denied all averments made by MCGM in their affidavit and contended that the civic body did not give her fair opportunity to provide explanation to the allegations. The rejoinder states-

"I specifically deny that the record established that the Petitioner has unlawfully made substantial alterations and additions to the property, contrary to the sanctioned building plan. I deny that alleged illegal work as alleged or at all was being carried on. I put the Respondents to the strict proof thereof. I deny that the sanctioned plans establish that illegal work was carried out. I say that had the Respondents given me a fair opportunity as required in law, I would have been able to respond to their allegations after taking appropriate advise from experts."

Alleging clear bias against her, the petitioner pointed out that the notice issued to designer Manish Malhotra who lives in an adjacent bungalow was given 7 days notice under Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 whereas notice was issued to her under Section 354A-

"The invocation under section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act was done illegally by the Respondent No.1 and its officials to deprive me an opportunity of providing an explanation and thus amounts to abuse of statutory powers by the Respondent no.1 and its officials. In fact it is pertinent to point out herein that while the Respondent No.1 and its officials, malafidely issued me the Impugned Notice under section 354A of the MMC Act to seek personal vendetta, they, on the contrary on the same day, issued a Notice under section 351 of the MMC Act to an adjacent bungalow no.6 occupied by the famous fashion designer, Manish Malhotra giving him 7 days' time to provide explanation and appropriately respond to the same. This conduct of the Respondent No.1 and its officials clearly demonstrates bias and further displays that the Impugned Notice issued to me is vitiated by malice and was issued as a counterblast to the statements made by me."

Moreover, the actor has argued -

"Respondent No.1 and 2 have no answer to any of the discrepancies that have been pointed out by me in my Amended Writ Petition. Instead, the Respondent No.1 and 2 have reproduced only parts of sentences of my Amended Writ Petition, tried to misrepresent my contentions therein and then have tried to meet them. The Revised Reply of the Respondent No.2 is a last ditch attempt on the Respondents' part to cover up their ex facie illegal acts.

Further, the deponent has at every stage tried to improve the case by making incorrect statements to justify the illegal acts. Though there is no mention of the number of workers/nature of material allegedly available at site, in the Affidavit in Reply dated 10th September,2020 which was filed by the deponent first, the deponent mentioned that at time of inspection "workmen, materials and tools were present". No photographs of such workmen (except one doing leakage control) or material/tools was produced.

In the Revised Reply, the deponent has once again falsely tried to improve their case by stating that there were "6 workmen present along with materials such as plywood and that renovation and finishing work was going on "virtually in the entire premises including the unlawful addition and alterations". The deponent has clearly perjured himself to justify the illegal actions. Infact the list of the alleged work mentioned in the Impugned Notice itself demonstrates and establishes that there was no 'ongoing work'."

Finally, addressing the Municipal Corporation's affidavit, the actor has also denied the allegation that the destruction of articles listed (seeking damages) is false or has been belatedly made only as a counterblast. Annexing comparative photos of the said Bungalow before and after the demolition carried out by MCGM and its officials along with the cost of the articles that were destroyed, the petitioner has said that a complete assessment of the damage caused is yet to be completed.

The matter will be heard by a division bench of Justice SJ Kathawala and Justice RI Chagla today at 3 pm.

Click Here To Download Affidavit

[Read Affidavit]