The Bombay High Court on Friday announced its verdict on Kangana Ranaut’s office demolition case. It declared that Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation’s (BMC) action of demolishing a part of Kangana Ranaut’s bungalow as ‘illegal and smacks of malafide intentions’. A bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and RI Chagla said that the action was ‘bad in law’ and observed that it was carried out on ‘wrongful grounds’ and ‘against the rights of the citizens’. It further stated that it does not approve of authorities using ‘muscle power’ against any citizen and said that the case was fit for awarding compensation to the actor for the damages caused. Also Read - Tandav Row: Kangana Ranaut Reacts To Controversy, Calls Web Series 'Atrocious, Objectionable'

Now, Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut reacted to the verdict and told news agency ANI, “The actress called Mumbai Police mafia & Mumbai PoK. Do parties that are excited over the Court order agree with this? Indecent remarks about judges or Courts lead to contempt, is it not defamation when someone makes such remarks about Maharashtra/Mumbai?” Also Read - Dhaakad Poster Out: Kangana Ranaut is 'Fearless And Fiery' in First Look, Film To Release on This Date

The bench of justice also said that it did not condone any illegal construction carried out by any citizen and neither did it approve Kangana’s tweets that led to the whole incident.

It said in the order, “This court does not approve of illegal works or of loose statements made against the government or against the film industry.”

The court further said, “We are of the view that the petitioner, being a public-spirited person, should exercise some restraint while tweeting. And if any action is taken at all, it must be within the four walls of the legal system. Any sort of muscle power can not be indulged in by the state. The demolition action smacked of malafide and was carried out to cause substantial losses to the petitioner (Ranaut). Even if one assumes that the malice does not amount to personal bias, it does amount to legal malice.”

“The manner in which the action was carried out leaves no doubt that using section 354 was unauthorised, bad in law and aimed at preventing the petitioner from taking recourse to preventive legal action”, the bench added.