X : @vivekbhavsar
Mumbai : Brihanmumbai Municipal Commissioner Mr. Bhushan Gagrani on 09 June 2024, sent a letter numbered MCP/5582 to the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). In this letter, Mr. Gagrani made serious allegations against the SRA, stating, “It is clear that the SRA is exercising its powers beyond the provisions of DCPR-2034 and the powers granted under the MRTP Act of 1966. Therefore, in his letter he stated that, “you are requested to please direct the concerned S.R.A. Officers to immediately take action on the same and stop issuing such permissions which are beyond SRA’s jurisdiction and further, it is also requested to withdraw such permissions which are already granted, to avoid further legal complications in future.”
Without taking any action on this letter, sent by a senior IAS officer of the level of Additional Chief Secretary and working in the capacity of the BMC Commissioner to the SRA, instead of investigating the legal validity of the permissions granted under Regulations 33(11), 33(12)(B) and 33(19), preferred to sought a legal opinion from former Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, Mr. Dilip Bhosale. In providing this legal opinion, Mr. Bhosale expressed a disclaimer and stated:
“In view of the factual background provided by the Querist, the query has been answered by me. It is made clear that the above opinion is based on facts, the documents made available to me and discussion I have had with the representatives of the Querist. It is further made clear that I have not independently verified the facts represented to me. It is needless to mention that the above opinion is not binding on judicial or quasi-judicial authority and that it is rendered for the reference and record of the Querist.”
On 08 July 2024, the Chief Executive Officer of SRA sent a letter under reference number SRA/CEO/ENG/15/2024 to the BMC Commissioner, asserting that the decisions made by the SRA were legally valid and that the BMC could not prevent the SRA from granting any future approvals, thereby defending its illegal practices.
In response to the letter sent by the SRA on 08 July 2024, BMC Commissioner Mr. Bhushan Gagrani sent a detailed 21-page reply to the Principal Secretary of Urban Development-1 on 29 August 2024, under the letter number MCP/7837. In this correspondence, Mr. Gagrani referred to Mr. Bhosale’s disclaimer and legally articulated how the decisions made by the SRA were legally incorrect. He noted that the SRA was clearly misusing its provisions and requested the Urban Development Department to issue the following guidelines under Section 154 of the MRTP Act of 1966:
1. The guidelines shall be formulated for joint development of slum and non-slum development adjacent to each other only in case of constraints like small size of plot, odd shape of plot, non-availability of access to the slum plot, reservation on the plot which is a part of larger reservation which can not be developed in parts, development of D.P. Road for widening of the road, a part of which, is not passing through the scheme, etc.
2. The guidelines shall be issued regarding charging of premium and other charges applicable on non-slum portion at normal rates of other regulations and also allowing the planning norms strictly as per general regulations applicable for non-slum schemes without any relaxations.
3. Clubbing of schemes under Reg. 33(11) with other schemes on non-slum plots shall be strictly scrutinised as per the provision of general regulations and non-slum plots and with the prior approval of Government, considering lot of inconsistencies and irregularities in issuing these permissions by misusing the powers by S.R.A.
4. The guidelines shall be issued for clubbing of proposal of slums, non-slum plots and proposals under Regulations 33(10) and 33(11) and shall strictly mention that proposals shall not be allowed to club with non-slum proposals in any regulation under Reg. 33.
The BMC, responsible for urban planning in Mumbai, faces challenges due to the SRA’s recent approvals of redevelopment projects in non-slum areas. The BMC has requested the State Government to limit SRA’s authority to specific regulations to prevent unauthorized and unplanned development. Furthermore, the BMC urged the Urban Development Department to verify all permissions against regulations, emphasising the need for strict oversight to maintain Mumbai’s status and prevent haphazard growth. Additionally, the BMC pointed out that SRA developments often lack essential amenities and infrastructure, resulting in substandard living conditions that adversely impact real estate values. Therefore, the BMC called for clear government guidelines to address these issues and ensure proper urban planning.
In this regard, as requested by Commissioner Mr. Gagrani, the Maharashtra Government’s Urban Development Department-1 issued directions under Section 154 of the MRTP Act 1966, and published a GR on 15 October 2024 regarding the implementation of Regulation 33(11). According to this government resolution, while granting approvals under Regulation 33(11), the premiums and other concessions applicable under Regulation 33(10) will not apply. Consequently, the difference in the premium that the SRA has to collect from developers under Regulation 33(11) is mandatory. However, according to the information received, since the GR has been published on 15 October 2024, two months have passed, yet the SRA has taken no action to recover the difference in premium. The government order also directs the SRA to immediately initiate an online approval system, but there has been no reported action taken in this regard.
Ultimately, it appears that the GR published by the Urban Development Department-1, under the leadership of the then Chief Minister and Minister of Urban Development on 15 October 2024, SRA has shown negligence in enforcing the directions issued by the government, failing to fulfill its official duties. This act of the CEO (SRA) is nothing but misconduct within administrative system and dereliction of official duty.
Will the newly elected Chief Minister of Maharashtra and the designated Chairperson of the SRA, Devendra Fadnavis, personally address the need for action against the concerned engineering department officials of the SRA, who have allegedly caused losses to the government while benefiting developers? Will he take steps to recover the thousands of crores lost by the Maharashtra government due to the actions of the SRA’s engineering department officials?
In our upcoming story in this issue, we will shed light on the reasons that prompted the BMC Commissioner to write a letter to the SRA. We will also delve into the violations and illegal activities committed by the SRA that led to a loss of thousands of crores to the government. And finally, we will also discuss why the Urban Development Department-1 of the Maharashtra Government felt it necessary to issue directives under Section 154 of the MRTP Act of 1966?
Stay tuned for more updates as we continue to unravel this pressing story…
