The petition was filed through Kaalkaa Real Estates, a company owned by Rane’s family. The company filed the fresh regularisation application before BMC under Section 342 of the MMC Act which stipulates notifying the Commissioner for making any alteration or addition to an existing building.
With the new application, the company claimed benefit of the Floor Space Index (FSI) upto 4 FSI on the proposed land component as per the Development Control and Promotion Regulation (DCPR).
The petitioner sought directions so that the planning department within BMC decides the new application uninfluenced by the orders passed by BMC including the rejection of the retention application.
BMC had issued a notice to Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. in March directing it to remove the alleged unauthorised work on the premises within 15 days failing which the corporation will demolish those portions and recover the charges from the owners/ occupiers.
This notice was challenged before the High Court pursuant to which the Court had protected the structure from demolition till June 24, until the regularisation application by Rane was heard by BMC.
Subsequently, the regularisation application was rejected by the BMC on June 3. Since the protection granted by the High Court was expiring soon, Rane moved High Court seeking urgent relief.
On June 23, the High Court rejected Rane’s petition challenging the rejection order.
Rane has now moved the High Court seeking that BMC decide his second application without influence of its earlier orders.
Source: Barandbench
