Actor Sonu Sood Moves Top Court For Interim Ex Parte Stay Against Bombay High Court's Refusal To Intervene In BMC's Illegal Construction Notice

Bollywood actor Sonu Sood has moved the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition to grant ad interim ex parte stay of the operation of the final judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay and oder passed by City Civil Court at Bombay, Dindoshi, denying him relief against the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) notice on illegal construction at his building.

The actor's plea, filed through advocates Ujjwal Anand Sharma and D Kumanan, it has been alleged that financial loss caused due to demolition is irrecoverable even if the application is approved, which has caused a grave miscarriage of justice.

The plea further alleges that the Hon'ble High Court fell into a grave error by not granting a stay to the demolition when the petitioners' application was approved by the Municipal Commissioner subject to Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (M.C.Z.M.A.) permission.

In the present case, the petitioners on 19.06.2018 submitted the proposal for user change from residential to residential hotels or lodging house and shop to the restaurant at ground floor in the building known as 'Shakti Sagar Building' Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (M.C.G.M.) which on 07.02.2020 got approved.

Since the petitioners were desirous of converting the said building into a Residential Hotel, the Petitioners started carrying out interior work demolished by the Respondents on 12.11.2018. Irrespective of the approval the respondent served Notice to the petitioners on 24.10.2020 u/s 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1996 (M.R.T.P. Act) asking them to apply under Section 44 of M.R.T.P. Act for retention of the work before M.C.G.M., within one month from the date of receipt of the Notice.

After that, apprehending demolition of the internal structure the petitioners filed L.C. Suit No 1368 of 2020 before Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay, Dindoshi u/s 34, 37, to 39 of Specific Relief Act to declare the Notice dated 24.10.2020 as illegal, bad in law, capricious, arbitrary, jurisdictional error, nullity and malafide and Notice of Motion No.1590 of 2020 seeking a temporary injunction against the Respondents.

The City Civil Court at Bombay while dismissing the Notice of Motion No 1590 of 2020 vide its order dated 19.12.2020 observed that,

"15. In the present matter, at this stage, it appears that plaintiffs have carried out additions/alterations in the suit building which is unauthorized and there is no application under section 44 of M.R.T.P. Act filed by the plaintiffs for retention of unauthorized work. Hence, the plaintiffs do not meet such approval going by the parameters of Section 44 of the M.R.T.P. Act till now. Therefore, the illegality has been detected and crystallized by the Officer of the defendant/M.C.G.M. The alleged Notice under section 53(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act issued by the defendant to the plaintiffs appears to be proper. In view of reasons above and discussion, it appears that at this juncture or stage, the plaintiffs have not made out any case to grant a temporary injunction against the defendant/M.C.G.M. in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b) of the Notice of Motion."

Aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay which was dismissed by A Single Bench of Justice Prithviraj Chavan.

According to the petitioners, "While issuing the Notice dated 24th October 2020 under section 53 (1) of the M.R.T.P. Act, there was a total non-application of mind on the part of the Respondent Corporation. It was illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide and a nullity that did not accurately depict the alleged offending structure. The Notice did not say "not less than a month" as contemplated under section 53 (1) of the M.R.T.P. Act.

There was no speaking order, nor there was any mention of earlier demolitions, the petitioner states.

The petitioners have further contended that they have already applied for regularisation u/s 44 of the M.R.T.P. Act which has been approved subject to N.O.C from M.C.Z.M.A. According to the petitioners, the Hon'ble High Court should have considered that Notice was vague and could not identify the alleged unauthorized construction. They further contended that neither did the Notice state the dimensions of the alleged unauthorized construction and nor commented about the construction material.

Access Copy of Petition Here