Shiv Sena spokesman and Member of Parliament Sanjay Raut did not mention Kangana Ranaut’s name when he used an “expletive” to describe a “girl”, his lawyer told the Bombay High Court on Monday.
The court had asked Pradeep Thorat, Raut’s lawyer, to clarify if his client had used an abusive word against the actor.
When the court earlier asked Ranaut to substantiate her claims of being “abused by Raut”, her lawyer, Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf, played a clip of an interview the Sena leader gave to a TV channel, where he was heard saying ‘Woh xxxx ladki’. Saraf said the expletive referred to Ranaut.
Thorat said his client had not mentioned the actor’s name, and hence it could not be construed that Raut had abused Ranaut.
The HC asked Saraf to produce all the tweets by Ranaut, the entire video interview of Raut where he allegedly used the abusive word, and a subsequent video of him explaining the word he used.
During the course of the day’s hearing, on Ranaut’s petition against the demolition of portions of her office, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) said work had been on at the Pali Hill premises when it took action.
The division bench of Justice S J Kathawalla and Justice R I Chagla had wanted to know why the BMC had invoked section 354 (A) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, which pertains to issuing “stop work” for an ongoing construction or other work at a site, and not section 351, that pertains to “completed unauthorised work” but prescribes giving enough notice to the owner of the property.
The BMC submitted that finishing or renovation work was in progress on the unauthorised alterations and additions at Ranaut’s place.
According to the BMC, Ranaut, in response to the stop-work notice on September 8, had claimed there was no work going on, when in fact it was, and hence the civic body was justified to consider it as continuation of the alterations done in the past and invoke section 354 (A).
Senior Counsel Aspi Chinoy, appearing for the BMC, submitted, “If she had said (while responding to stop-work notice) that she has stopped work or has permission, the seven-day period under section 351 of the MMC Act would have started.”
Saraf and advocate Rizwan Siddiquee, appearing for Ranaut, earlier told the court only leakage-proofing was being carried out on the premises, which was “detected and inspected by the BMC’s Mukadam and executive engineer on September 5 and 7, respectively”.
Saraf said the alleged alterations and additions, mentioned in the BMC notice, were completed in 2019 and could be proved with photographs of rituals held by the actor at the bungalow in January this year.
Chinoy and advocate Joel Carlos claimed, “This petition is being portrayed as an individual being harassed because of her public utterances against a government and party in power. The reality is slightly different. This is a case where the petitioner has unlawfully carried out substantial illegal alterations. There is a studied silence on when this work was done.”
The court also questioned BMC designated officer from H-West Ward Bhagyavant Late, and noted that while he took more time to demolish other properties in the same area, he had acted swiftly in Ranaut’s case.
The court will continue hearing the matter on Tuesday, September 29, from 3 pm.
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines