Part III : Controversial tenure of civic chief Iqbal Singh Chahal: A review of accusations and their consequences

X : @vivekbhavsar

Mumbai: In the ongoing series “Controversial Tenure of Civic Chief Iqbal Singh Chahal: A Review of Accusations and Their Consequences,” we delve into the contentious actions and decisions made by Dr Iqbal Singh Chahal during his tenure as the Municipal Commissioner of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). This series seeks to expose the misuse of power and dereliction of duty by this senior IAS officer, who allegedly overstepped his authority by granting approvals that exceeded the provisions of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034, seemingly to benefit certain developers.

Having already published two articles detailing these serious issues, I reached out to Dr Chahal with a questionnaire consisting of nine questions regarding the decisions he made in his capacity as the Municipal Commissioner of BMC. I requested explanations and the legal basis for his decisions. Unfortunately, Dr Chahal failed to provide satisfactory responses.

In this article, I focus on the first question I posed to Dr Iqbal Singh Chahal, evaluating his reply and assessing its relevance and appropriateness. Here is the question, his response, and my analysis. 

The question I asked Dr. Iqbal Singh Chahal was as follows:

1. MCHI-Credai initially requested a reduction in the penalty from 10% to 5% for regularising the conversion of elevation features and free FSI areas into habitable spaces. What prompted the complete waiver of the penalty, bringing it down from 10% to 0%?

Also Read: Controversial tenure of then civic chief Dr Iqbal Singh Chahal: A review of accusations and their consequences


2. The penalty waiver was justified by referencing the downturn in the real estate market during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the goal of encouraging owners and developers to hasten the regularisation of merged areas. Consequently, buildings that were 10 to 12 years old with significant Floor Space Index (FSI) violations were regularised in 2021. How do you justify this decision and the rationale behind regularising illegal or unauthorised developments in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Justice Abhay Oka on 04 November 2018?

The response received from Dr Iqbal Singh Chahal to my question was as follows:

1&2) MCHI – CREDAI had requested to reduce the penalty to NIL for regularisation of elevation features constructed and merged beyond approval/CC (Completion Certificate). The concerned department had recommended to reduce such penalty from then prevailing norm of 10% to 5% forever. However, I had made it stringent and allowed such penalty to NIL for a limited period from May 2021 to December 2021, which was coinciding with the period and in line with the Government’s policy of 50% reduction in all the premiums to boost the construction industry in COVID times. Despite the request from MCHI-CREDAI to give this benefit permanently forever, I did not do so. 

My Analysis and facts: 

Are all requests made by MCHI-CREDAI approved? The decision to approve such a request from MCHI-CREDAI, which resulted in a loss of government revenue, was made very swiftly. While making this decision, Mr Chahal did not consider the revenue loss to the government, and in granting this penalty waiver, he grossly and openly violated the procedures and rules established by the government. Dr Chahal waived the penalty without obtaining the necessary approval from the Finance Department as per Rule 11 of the “Maharashtra Shasan Karyaniyamavali“, and while doing so, he kept the Standing Committee and the Municipal Corporation House in the dark, without obtaining their approval. It seems this act is completely illegal. Additionally, Dr Chahal did not obtain the opinion of the Chief Accountant (Finance) and the Chief Legal Officer of the BMC.

Dr Iqbal Singh Chahal, under the pretext of the COVID-19 pandemic, waived the penalty for converting elevation features and free FSI areas into habitable areas to benefit certain developers, regularising buildings with unauthorised constructions that were 12 to 15 years old by granting them additional FSI. Dr Chahal stated another reason, saying, “However, while granting this penalty waiver, I made a stern decision and allowed this waiver for a specific period, from May 2021 to December 2021, in alignment with the government’s policy of providing a 50% reduction in all premiums to boost the construction industry during the COVID period.” 

Also Read: Part II : Controversial tenure of civic chief Iqbal Singh Chahal: A review of accusations and their consequences

Dr Iqbal Singh Chahal committed a fraud by misusing the government’s policy of a 50% reduction in all premiums to boost the construction industry during the COVID period, causing a loss of hundreds of crores of rupees to the government. The important provisions of implementing this policy were as follows: 

1. The benefit of this policy could only be availed if the building was under construction or was a new building. However, Dr Iqbal Singh Chahal misused his position as Municipal Commissioner to extend this benefit to buildings that had already received occupancy certificates (OC) with illegal constructions and had been regularised by granting additional FSI, causing a loss of hundreds of crores of rupees in revenue to the government.

2. He misused the Maharashtra government’s letter dated April 16, 2021, regarding the granting of additional FSI to regularise buildings that had received OC 12 to 15 years ago, violating government decisions by providing a 50% reduction in premiums. While making this decision, there was a blatant violation of rules and laws, and an attempt was made to explain how the construction sector was supposedly boosted.

3. Dr Iqbal Singh Chahal made a desperate attempt to mislead the public by not answering the question I asked. Despite the existence of the Municipal Corporation’s assembly until March 2022, he did not present the same proposal to the standing committee, nor did he present the proposal for penalty waiver to the Municipal Corporation’s assembly. Furthermore, as per Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Government Rules of Procedure, he did not submit the penalty waiver proposal for government approval. Without having the authority, he made a decision favoring the developers by blatantly violating the rules and orders set by the government, which was done illegally and knowingly caused a loss to the government’s treasury.  

Regarding the regularisation of unauthorised construction, Hon’ble Justice Abhay Oka, while striking down Section 52(A) of the MRTP Act 1966 on 04 November 2018, stated in his order that, 

1. “If construction of a building is carried out without obtaining development permission under the MRTP Act and the permissions required under the Municipal laws, it can be regularised if

(i) all the required parameters such as size of the plinth, available FSI, necessary safeguards for fire fighting etc as provided in the DCR are taken care of and

(ii) the structure can be made conforming to the provisions of DCR. By exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of section 52-A, such structure could be compounded if necessary, by imposing a condition to modify or alter the structure to bring it in conformity with the DCR. Obviously, if FSI is used which is more than what is permissible under the MRTP Act and the DCR framed thereunder, the structure to the extent to which additional FSI has been used cannot be regularised.

2. Referring to various apex court judgments, the bench said: “The Planning Authorities and the State will have to show zero tolerance to illegal constructions and it is the duty of the Planning Authority to take immediate steps for demolition of illegal developments”

Upon reviewing Dr Iqbal Singh Chahal’s above explanation, it becomes evident that he deliberately caused an irreparable loss of hundreds of crores of rupees to the government by waiving penalties for the illegal construction related to the regularisation of conversion of elevation features and free FSI into habitable areas, without following any procedures. Dr Iqbal Singh Chahal did not have any legal justification for his illegal actions, and thus provided me with confusing answers to my questions. 

My fundamental questions are as follows: 

1. How were occupancy certificates (OCs) issued to buildings with illegal constructions 12 to 15 years ago? 

2. Why was no strict action taken against the officers in the building proposal department who violated the law by issuing occupancy certificates to buildings with illegal constructions? What is the reason for not taking action? 

3. Why was no action taken on these buildings for 12 to 15 years under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act, 1966? 

4. Why was no strict action taken against the officers of the concerned department for failing to take action against the illegal constructions in buildings, thereby providing protection and immunity to those buildings with unauthorised constructions and gross violation of DCR, FSI, Environmental and Fire safety Norms for 12 to 15 years?

5. Finally, why were these buildings, 12 to 15 years old and granted an Occupation Certificate by the Building Proposal Department, regularised despite containing unauthorised constructions and significant violations of DCR, FSI, environmental, and fire safety norms and especially in a scenario wherein in the order passed iby the Hon’ble Justice Abhay Oka when section 52(A) of the MRTP Act 1966 was struck down on 04 November 2018?

Furthermore, Dr Iqbal Singh Chahal took extensive steps beyond his powers to benefit the developer by regularising the elevation features and converting areas free of FSI into habitable spaces without a penalty and allowed developers to pay a 50% premium on the additional FSI (even though it was not applicable). In doing so, Dr Iqbal Singh Chahal compromised the mandatory fire safety norms.

I believe Dr Iqbal Singh Chahal, as a senior IAS officer, should justify the decisions he made in his role as the Municipal Commissioner of the BMC.

In my upcoming Part IV, I will explain the third question sent to Dr Iqbal Singh Chahal, along with his reply and my analysis based on the facts.

……………….. to be continued