X :@vivekbhavsar
Mumbai
In the ongoing series titled “Controversial tenure of former civic chief Iqbal Singh Chahal : A review of accusations and their consequences,” I examine the contentious actions and decisions made by Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal during his time as the Municipal Commissioner of the BMC.
This series seeks to reveal instances of power misuse and neglect of duty by this senior IAS officer, who stands accused of misconduct within government system, abuse of power and overstepping his authority by granting approvals that exceed his jurisdiction and the provisions of the DCPR 2034, allegedly to benefit certain developers.
In this article, I focus on the seventh question I posed to Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal, analysing his response and assessing its relevance and appropriateness. Below, I present the seventh question, his answer, and my analysis, along with the relevant facts.
My Question to Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal:
Question – 7. Did you alter the RL of a dead-end road? Was this decision intended to offer additional FSI benefits, given that DCPR 2034 empowers the BMC to grant FSI based on road width, potentially benefiting buildings with significant FSI violations?
Reply received from Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal to my above Question:
Reply – 7. You have not cited any specific details about RL/dead end. But according to my knowledge, no such road widening contravening law is insisted by me.
My Analysis with the Facts:
In a controversial move attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr. Chahal, the former Municipal Commissioner of BMC, by issuing a circular dated 12 May 2021, granted approval to the regularisation of numerous buildings with unauthorised construction, that substantially contravened Floor Space Index (FSI) regulations. This decision has raised serious concerns regarding the misuse of power and overstepping the authority for the benefit of developers. Mr. Chahal’s actions involved the illegal approval and regularisation of buildings that, under any standard regulations, could not have been legitimised, all while neglecting to enforce Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966. For the purpose of this discussion, I will focus on a single building located in the H/East Ward, though it is important to note that the number of similarly regularised buildings is substantial, with many being at least 12 to 15 years old. Only Mr. Chahal can clarify how these buildings relate to the COVID 19 pandemic of 2020/21.
As per the municipal circular CHE/23227/DP/Gen issued on 21 November 2017, building that received approval under the Development Control Rules before 06 January 2012, could allow owners, developers, or co-operative housing societies to modify certain features or uses in order to utilise free FSI as usable FSI. However, this circular applies only to circumstances prior to the enforcement of the DCPR 2034, which came into effect on 01 September 2018. According to DCPR 2034, Regulation 9(6)(b) is applicable to the ongoing partially completed works, this means the benefit under Regulation 9(6)(b) is not applicable to the buildings wherein Occupation Certificate has been granted by the BMC prior to 01 September 2018.
Section 9(6)(b) of the DCPR 2034 states that, “In case of such plots or layouts that started with due permission before DCPR 2034 have come into force and if the owner /developer, at his option, thereafter seeks further development of plot / layout / buildings as per DCPR 2034, then the provisions of DCPR 2034 shall apply to the balance development. The development potential of such entire plot shall be computed as per DCPR 2034 from which the sanctioned FSI of buildings / part of buildings which are proposed to be retained as per approved plans as per then Regulations, shall be deducted to arrive at the balance development potential of such plot or layout.” Notably, the building in question was completed and received an occupancy certificate in 2010.
In order to provide the building in question with additional Floor Space Index (FSI) under the guidelines of DCPR 2034, wherein the width of the road is a determining factor. Allegedly, Shri Chahal altered the R/L and unlawfully approved the regularisation of the building located in the H/East ward by adjusting the road width to 18.3 meters on paper, facilitating the developer/owner by granting the additional FSI and regularising the building, rather than enforcing the provision as outlined in section 53 of the MRTP Act 1966 to demolish the unauthorised construction in the said building. Shri Chahal misused his power by choosing to grant illegal approvals to regularise the building, benefiting the developer, instead of proceeding with the action outlined in section 53 of the MRTP Act 1966 to demolish the unauthorised construction.
To grant the additional FSI to the building under reference as per the provisions under DCPR 2034, wherein the width of the road is a determining factor. It appeared that, Shri Chahal controversially shifted the R/L of the road and granted illegal approval for the regularisation the said building in the H/East ward, by making the road width 18.3 meters on paper so that he could unlawfully help the developer/owner by granting the additional FSI and regularise the building under reference instead of taking action against the said building as per the provision under section 53 of the MRTP Act 1966.
Furthermore, any construction exceeding 20,000 square meters is required to obtain clearance from the Environmental Department. In granting illegal approval for the regularisation of this building under Regulation 9(6)(b), Mr. Chahal noted, “Approved as proposed by CE(DP) subject to insisting MOEF clearance as per Act.” This implies that despite the work from the underground water tank to the over head water tank on a plot of 2895.75 square meters exceeding 20,000 square meters, the developer had not obtained an MOEF clearance. Yet, an approval under Regulation 9(6)(b) of DCPR 2034 was illegally granted for the benefit of the developer without taking action against the illegal building as per Section 53 of the MRTP Act 1966, thereby misusing his powers to regularise the building under reference. Mr. Chahal’s actions, therefore, not only violated DCPR 2034 regulations but also sidestepped the mandatory requirements outlined in section 53 of the MRTP Act of 1966. The biggest question remains unanswered is, “Under which regulation was construction of more than 20,000 square meters done on a plot of 2,895.75 square meters?”
The regularisation of this building raises critical concerns regarding compliance with established regulations and its potential impact on urban planning and environmental standards. The DCPR 2034 aims to promote sustainable and environmentally compliant developments aligned with the city’s infrastructure plans. Granting illegal approvals undermines these goals and could set a dangerous precedent for future infractions.
Moreover, the disregard for obtaining an clearance from the Environmental Department is particularly alarming. Such certificates are vital for evaluating the environmental repercussions of large-scale construction projects, ensuring they do not harm local ecosystems or exacerbate issues like pollution and resource depletion. By circumventing these regulations, authorities risk compromising urban development integrity and potentially jeopardising community health and safety.
Whereas, Clause 2 of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (for imposing certain restrictions and prohibitions on new Projects and Activities, or on the Expansion or Modernisation of existing projects or activities based on their potential environmental impacts as indicated in the Schedule to the notification, being undertaken in any part of India, unless prior environment clearance has been accorded) clearly states that Building and Construction Projects require prior environmental clearance from concern regulatory authority as per Notification Dated 14th September 2006. Despite the above mandatory condition BMC not only granted approval to construct the building but also granted Occupation Certificate in 2010.
The implications of this situation extend well beyond the specific building in question. It prompts broader questions about the effectiveness of governance and regulatory frameworks in place. The apparent misuse of power by municipal officials including then commissioner Shri Chahal, underscores an urgent need for enhanced accountability and transparency in the construction approval process. Stakeholders, including citizens and environmental advocates, must remain vigilant and push for stricter enforcement of regulations to prevent similar abuses in the future.
The following questions are expected to be answered by the then Municipal Commissioner, Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal:
- Although Rule 9(6)(B) of the DCPR 2034 states that only buildings currently under construction are eligible for benefits under the DCPR 2034 provisions, why did Shri Chahal misuse his power as the Municipal Commissioner to grant illegal approval to the building that had obtained an occupancy certificate, allowing it to regularise under the DCPR 2034 provisions for the benefit of the developer/owner?
- To obtain additional FSI for the said building, was the width of the road adjacent to the building shown as 18.30 meters on paper, and was there an R/L shift conducted for this purpose?
- After it was revealed that the developer/owner had illegally constructed the building in violation of development control regulations, why did Shri Chahal refrain from taking action against the building under Section 53 of the MRTP Act 1966?
- Under which regulations was construction exceeding 20,000 square meters carried out on a plot of 2,895.75 square meters, and why was approval and an occupancy certificate granted for this construction despite the absence of MOEF clearance? What are the reasons for not initiating an inquiry into this matter?
- The construction of the said building was completed, and an occupancy certificate was issued. Despite the state government’s decision stating that the benefit of premium concessions can only be availed by buildings currently under construction, why was a 50% premium concession granted while regularising the said building?
- Are the owners/developers of the regularised building in H/East, the regularised building in P/South, and the bungalow building in Juhu for which Shri Chahal granted illegal permissions for redevelopment under Regulation 33(20)(B) of the DCPR 2034, all are same? Do they have any connections with Shri Chahal? For how many of their projects did Shri Chahal misuse his power to benefit them? How many and what specific benefits did Shri Chahal provide to this developer by misusing his power, resulting a huge loss to the Municipal Corporation? We have a list of decisions taken by Shri Chahal in favour of various developers by misusing his powers.
Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal’s tenure as Municipal Commissioner of BMC has been overshadowed by serious allegations of misconduct, abuse of power, and considerable financial losses to the government. The apparent lack of transparency and accountability in his decision-making process raises substantial concerns. These actions have been characterised as a misuse of power, favouring the interests of certain developers at the expense of the public interest and causing financial detriment to the government. His decisions, made without consulting relevant committees, further call into question the legality of his actions.
Former Municipal Commissioner Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal blatantly abused his power, prioritising the interests of developers over the strict enforcement of the law. Why did he grant illegal approvals by violating the provisions of DCPR 2034 and MRTP Act 1966? It is terrifying if Shri Chahal had no fear of the law while making these unlawful decisions, or if he was confident that no action would be taken against him. What leads him to believe that he is invincible and above the law? Is it the power, status, and immunity that come with being an IAS officer, or does he have the backing and protection of someone in power? If the protector becomes the predator, it is extremely dangerous for the society, the state, and the nation. It is imperative to put a stop to such attitudes before it is too late.
Given the gravity of these allegations, it is crucial to conduct a comprehensive investigation to ensure accountability and transparency within the governance framework. We urge the newly elected Chief Minister of Maharashtra Devendra Fadnavis to conduct a diligent inquiry into these matters to maintain the integrity of governance and protect public interest.
In conclusion, the allegations against Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal require serious attention and rectification to restore public confidence in the governance framework. A thorough investigation is essential to address these concerns and to prevent similar issues from arising in the future.
Do you, the readers, agree that it is essential to establish a precedent that removes any perception of impunity among officials? How important do you think this action is in deterring misconduct within the administrative system and ensuring that no one is above the law, regardless of their position or authority?
Kindly share your opinion through Whatsapp message on +91 9930403073.
In the forthcoming Part IX, I will delve into the Eighth question posted to Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal, detailing his response and offering my analysis alongside the facts.
Stay tuned for further updates as we delve deeper into the unfolding story of misconduct within the government system and the misuse of authority by Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal, aimed at benefiting the developers and the private entities…
