Manohar argued that the BMC and the state government had time and again given the Chinese restaurant an expectation that its case was being considered and the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) that it cited as a reason for not regularising the structure, in its last communication, had never been mentioned before.

The division bench of Justice M B Ghodeswar and Justice B N Srikrishna heard the hotly argued case, almost to the exclusion to all other matters on the heavy board, and the matter has been kept for further hearing tomorrow.

Overseas Chinese Cuisine (India) Pvt Ltd has filed a petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the BMC's decision not to accept the heritage TDR bought by therestaurant in Kemps Corner to regularise the illegal structure. According to the BMC, the restaurant that had been given permission to operate from around 73 sq mtres had expanded to cover around 700 sq metres. The restaurant has been functioning without a licence since 1991. While the demolition of the restaurant is pending since 1985, the BMC on July 3 rejected its application for regularisation against heritage TDRs claiming that it could not do so, since the structure fell in the Coastal Regulation Zone.

Special counsel for the BMC, K K Singhvi argued that China Garden had exhausted all the avenues open to it under Section 53 (3) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 when its applications and appeals had been heard and rejected by BMC and the state government. He argued that the fresh application that had been made by the restaurant in 1997/98 did not fall under the section anymore. With all the suits against the BMC action being rejected by the Bombay High Court, he argued that thepetitioners could not be allowed to ``vex courts time and again on the same cause of action''. ``This party does not deserve justice,'' he argued saying that it would have to renew its application under a separate section of law if it wanted to restart the process.

However, Manohar countered that as far as the demolition notice was kept very much alive by the BMC, his applications were to be considered. ``Till 1997, the state and the corporation say that if you fulfill these conditions, you can be regularised,'' he said charging that it was his case that his clients was left going ``door to door for bureaucrats to toy with, when he made his applications''. To this, Justice Srikrishna asked what was the section under which he was approaching the state government, when his application had already been rejected.

Manohar stated that he would be able to satisfy the court on this account as well and urged that the bench go through the files of the civic body to know first hand the way his case was handled. Healso charged that the present municipal commmissioner K Nalinakshan had, when he was the secretary of the urban development sent letters to the BMC to ``consider the case within 45 days''. ``The same man does a volte face when he sits on the armchair of the BMC. He owes a duty in these circumstances to file an affidavit, he should come clean,'' he argued suggesting that the commissioner be asked to file an affidavit on the subject.