Part VII : “Controversial tenure of former civic chief Iqbal Singh Chahal: A review of accusations and their consequences”

X: @vivekbhavsar

In the ongoing series titled “The Controversial Tenure of the former Civic Chief Iqbal Singh Chahal: A review of accusations and their consequences” I explore the debated actions and decisions taken by Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal while serving as the Municipal Commissioner of the BMC. This series aims to uncover instances of Misuse of Power and dereliction of duty, by this senior IAS officer, who is accused of exceeding his authority by granting approvals beyond his powers and the scope of the DCPR 2034, allegedly to favour specific developers. In this article, I concentrate on the fifth & sixth question I addressed to Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal, analysing his response and evaluating its relevance and suitability. Here is the Fifth and Sixth question, his answer, and my analysis alongside the facts.

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

My Question to Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal:

5. Did you have the authority to waive the penalty at your level, and does this not violate Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Shasan Karyaniyamavali?  Why was approval from the Finance Department through the UDD not sought for waiving the penalty?

6. As of 12 May 2021, the corporation was operational, and no administrator had been appointed for the BMC. Why was this proposal not submitted to the Standing Committee, Corporation, and the approval from the FD and UDD of the Government for a decision on waiving the penalty?

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

Reply received from Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal to my above Question:
5 & 6) The said circular is not violative of or in contravention of any court order or law. Municipal Commissioner is empowered to issue such circular under MRTP Act in general and sec 152 of the MRTP Act in particular. I am sure you would appreciate that the circular under reference has been modified since its inception in 2004 and at least my immediate three predecessors have revised this circular time to time considering the situation at that time and approval of Corporation was not warranted.

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

My Analysis with the Facts:
The actions of Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal, who was in charge of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) have come under intense scrutiny due to allegations of procedural violations and questionable decision-making. Central to the controversy is his decision to waive penalties related to the conversion of free Floor Space Index (FSI) into habitable areas, a move that has reportedly resulted in substantial financial losses for the municipal treasury. This article delves into the specifics of the violations attributed to Shri Chahal and the broader implications for governance in Mumbai.

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

During Mr. Iqbal Singh Chahal’s tenure as the Municipal Commissioner of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, he made numerous decisions related to building construction permissions, which were anticipated to align with the interests of developers. However, there were notable instances where he appeared to overstep his authority, leading to allegations of power abuse and misuse. Significant breaches of the Development Control Regulations (DCR) were reported, with illegal constructions frequently being ignored. His decisions reportedly resulted in financial detriment to the government, benefiting developers while compromising the financial integrity of the municipal corporation and the availability of housing. The actions he took, have been reported by TheNews21.com, reflect traits commonly associated with operations in a kleptocracy, a term derived from the Greek for “thief rule.” 

The terms ‘kleptocracy’ and ‘kleptocrats’ are generally utilized to describe corrupt governments and the politicians who lead them. In this instance, I am applying the term kleptocracy specifically to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and its former Chief, Mr. Iqbal Singh Chahal. It is important to note that, at a global level, the United Nations Convention Against Corruption advocates for the prevention and punishment of kleptocracy and the actions of kleptocrats across the world.

Also Read: Challenging Integrity : Author’s Response to Accusations from Former Civic Chief Iqbal Singh Chahal

Kleptocracy fosters rampant corruption through the abuse of power and administrative overreach, often granting near-total immunity to those empowered to exploit resources under the direction of the organization’s leader and their associates. In such a system, the illegal acts committed by the government’s allies are legitimised by a corrupt legal framework. Does this ring a bell?

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

Context of the BMC’s Operational Status:
On the date in question, the BMC was fully operational without the appointment administrator. In such a scenario, the expectation is that existing officials exercise heightened diligence in adhering to established protocols and engaging in collaborative decision-making processes. The absence of oversight from an IAS officer appoint as the Municipal Commissioner of the BMC, places an even greater responsibility on him to ensure transparency and accountability.

Key Violations done by Mr. Iqbal Singh Chahal and Concerns:
1. Failure to Submit Proposals for Approval :
A fundamental violation identified in Shri Chahal’s actions is the failure to submit the proposal for waiving penalties to the Standing Committee and the Corporation. These bodies are vital for oversight and accountability in municipal governance. By not involving them in this significant decision, Shri Chahal not only undermined the democratic process but also neglected the input of elected representatives who are tasked with safeguarding public interests.

2. Neglecting Opinions off the Concerned Departments : 
Another troubling aspect of this situation is that Shri Chahal did not seek the opinions of key officials within the BMC, specifically the Chief Accountant (Finance) and the Chief Law Officer. Their responsibilities include evaluating the financial implications and legal ramifications of waiving penalties. By bypassing these essential opinions, Shri Chahal’s decision lacked a foundation in the necessary financial and legal frameworks, which raises questions about its legitimacy.

3. Obtaining Prior Approvals From the Government : 
The sequence of events leading to the approval from the Finance Department and the Urban Development Department (UDD) before formally addressing the proposal is particularly concerning. This approach suggests a deliberate attempt to sidestep the usual procedures and checks that are in place to protect public resources. Such actions not only contravene established protocols but also cast doubt on the integrity of the approval process.

4. Financial Consequences of Waiving Penalties : 
The decision to waive penalties has reportedly resulted in losses amounting to hundreds of crores to the government treasury. This financial impact is not merely an oversight; it represents a significant misallocation of public funds that could have been used for essential services and infrastructure development. The lack of consideration for these financial ramifications reflects a troubling disregard for the economic health of the BMC and its constituents.

5. Authority to Waive Penalties : 
A critical question arises regarding whether Shri Chahal possessed the authority to unilaterally waive the penalties. According to Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Shasanachi Karyaniyamavali Aani Tya Anvaye Dilele Aadesh (महाराष्ट्र शासनाची कार्यनियमावली आणि त्या अन्वये दिलेले आदेश) specific protocols govern such decisions, and it appears that he may have overstepped his authority in this instance. The failure to adhere to these rules not only raises legal concerns but also highlights a potential abuse of power.

6. Implications of Invincibility :
The perception of invincibility among IAS officers, exemplified by Shri Chahal’s actions, poses a significant threat to the governance framework in Maharashtra. When officials operate with a sense of untouchability, it can lead to decisions that prioritize personal or developer interests over public welfare. This culture of impunity can weaken the state and the organization, ultimately resulting in the loss of valuable properties and resources owned by the BMC.

Questions Left Unanswered:
The ongoing controversy raises several critical questions that remain unanswered:

1. Why did Shri Chahal not seek approval from the Finance Department through the UDD for waiving the penalties?
2. Did he adequately consider the financial losses to the BMC before making this unilateral decision?

Below is the provision from Section 152 of the MRTP Act 1966 that Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal has cited to justify his decision to exceed his authority in waiving the penalty. Perhaps while in hurry of waiving off the penalty he skipped the provisioned outlined in Section 124 (B) and provision outlined in section 124 (B) & (C) for the implementation of the decision.

Section 152 of the MRTP Act 1966 : Powers of Planning Authority or Development Authority to be exercised by certain officers Section 152 of the MRTP Act 1966 outlines the delegation of powers and functions of Planning Authorities and Development Authorities to specific officers. It states that in a Municipal Corporation, these powers will be exercised by the Municipal Commissioner or an appointed officer. For a Zilla Parishad, the Chief Executive Officer or appointed officers will assume these responsibilities. In Municipal Councils, the Chief Officer will handle these functions, while other local authorities and Special Planning Authorities will be managed by their respective Chief Executive Officers or designated individuals. Additionally, New Town Development Authorities must publish the names of the officers exercising these powers for public awareness. The State Government also has the authority to delegate certain powers to the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority under specific conditions.

Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 151, the powers and functions of a Planning Authority or New Town Development Authority shall, for the purposes of sections 25, 43, 44, 45, 46, 49, 51, 53, 55, 56, 56A, 58, 89, 90,107, 112, 1[126 (1)(b)], 135, 136 and 142 be exercised and performed by the appointed officers.

I would like to emphasise that, section 124(B), 124(C), and 124(D) of the MRTP Act 1966 outlines the procedure for enhancing or reducing rates and development charges and its implementation. It seems that Mr. Iqbal Singh Chahal has conveniently overlooked this provision of the MRTP Act 1966, perhaps to favour the developers at cost of the public money.

Section 124 (B) establishes a procedural framework that the Authority must adhere to before making any adjustments to development charge rates. This section stipulates that the Authority is required to convene a special meeting to pass a resolution that approves the regulations for the proposed rates. Following this internal approval, it is necessary for the Authority to seek prior sanction from the State Government, ensuring that any changes to development charges are legally authorised before implementation.

Once the development charge regulations receive sanction from the State Government, as outlined in Section 124 (C), these regulations will take effect on a date that the Government specifies. This mechanism ensures that there is a clear timeline for when the new rates will be applicable, providing transparency and predictability for both the Authority and the affected parties.

Section 124 (D) emphasises the importance of public communication regarding the sanctioned regulations. The Authority is required to publish the new regulations in the Official Gazette and display them on their office notice board. Additionally, a notice must be published in a local newspaper to inform residents about the changes and their effective date. Notably, if the development charge rates undergo changes, there is no obligation to notify individual landowners or occupants separately, streamlining the process of public notification.

Further, the Maharashtra Government’s operational guidelines and the orders issued under them, (महाराष्ट्र शासनाची कार्यनियमावली आणि त्या अन्वये दिलेले आदेश)  particularly Rule 11(1)(a)(2), which includes “any provision involving the relinquishment of a revenue right,” stipulate that proposals regarding which prior consultation with the finance department is required under Rule 11(1) should be adhered to under Rule 11(2). 

However, despite the clear provision stating that no proposal for which the finance department has not granted consent can be processed unless a decision has been made by the Cabinet, it appears that Mr. Chahal has violated the process or methodology established by the government.

Nonetheless, Mr. Chahal asserts in his response that “the circular in question does not violate or contravene any judicial orders or laws.” However, he has breached the provisions under section 124(B) of the MRTP Act, 1966, as well as the provisions of महाराष्ट्रशासनाचीकार्यनियमावलीआणित्याअन्वयेदिलेलेआदेश, and the procedures established by the Government. Despite all this, Mr. Iqbal Singh Chahal boldly claims that “the circular in question does not violate or contravene any judicial orders or laws.” This is astonishing and demonstrates that IAS officials like Mr. Chahal have a sense of invincibility, believing they can manipulate the law to suit their needs and convenience, overstepping their authority or abusing their power. In his response, Mr. Chahal also noted that “the Municipal Commissioner has the general authority to issue such circulars under the MRTP Act, particularly under Section 152 of the MRTP Act.”

1. Fundamentally, Sections 151 and 152 of the MRTP Act relate to delegating powers to the Municipal Commissioner under the MRTP Act, and there is no mention of making financial decisions independently or issuing circulars regarding them. Comparing the statements provided by Mr. Chahal with the legal provisions clearly indicates that he has misled me with incorrect information.
2. Furthermore, Mr. Chahal mentioned in his response that “I am sure you would appreciate that the circular under reference has been modified since its inception in 2004, and at least my immediate three predecessors have revised this circular from time to time considering the situation at that time and that the approval of the Corporation was not warranted.”

Mr. Chahal states that the circular dated 16/06/2004, numbered CHE/77/DPC/Gen, was modified by his three predecessors. 

1. According to the information I have received, in 2011, a category was added stating “work carried out without approval but regularisable by way of utilising TDR or amalgamation additional plots, additional FSI as per DCR 33,” which was subjected to a 100% penalty. 
2. In 2017, the then-Commissioner, Mr. Ajoy Mehta, appears to have approved a proposal “to levy a penalty for work beyond approval for hospital buildings either as per rates applicable for residential premises or rates applicable for commercial premises.” 
3. In the circular dated 28/02/2020, the then-Commissioner included a new category stating “for regularising-converting elevation features/free of FSI features into habitable use which are shown/reflected in the approved plan. May not involve new construction & if FSI required for such regularisation is available as per relevant provision of the regulation,” which imposed a 10% penalty. 
4. However, Mr. Chahal has completely waived the applicable 10% penalty imposed by the circular dated 28/02/2020, citing COVID-19 as a reason, allowing unauthorised buildings that received occupancy certificates 12 to 15 years ago to be irregularly regularised. This was done by him by overstepping his authority and in violation of the processes or methodologies determined by the government, without the involvement of the Municipal Corporation’s governing body, the standing committee, the chief accountant, and the chief legal officer, and the Finance Department as well as the Urban Development department of the Maharashtra Government,  by keeping them in dark.

Mr. Chahal has mentioned in his response that he made changes to the circular issued in 2004 by the three previous commissioners. I must emphasise that none of the penalties imposed by any prior commissioners were ever fully waived. The introduction of fungible FSI on 06/01/2012 and the new DCPR 2034 for Mumbai on 01/09/2018 led to changes in FSI, which may have prompted the then-commissioners to introduce a new category in the circular due to the availability of additional FSI. 

Even if we assume that some wrong decisions were made by previous commissioners, does that give Mr. Chahal the license to continue making decisions that financially damage the municipal corporation? Mr. Chahal’s continued decisions that harm the financial interests of the municipal corporation raise serious concerns that demand a thorough investigation. This situation cannot be overlooked.

According to the information available to us, some buildings regularised under the circular dated 12/05/2021 could not benefit from the circular issued in 2020, meaning those buildings could not be regularised by the additional FSI generated under DCPR 2034. It is alleged that Mr. Chahal made decisions that caused the Municipal Corporation significant financial losses without having the authority to do so.

Mr. Chahal referred to Section 152 of the MRTP Act, but while serving as the Municipal Commissioner, he seems to have overlooked the provisions concerning action against illegal construction, which include:

1. Section 53: Power to require removal of unauthorised development.
2. Section 55: Removal or discontinuance of unauthorised temporary development summarily.
3. Section 56: Power to require removal of unauthorised development or use.
4. Section 56(A): Punishment for failure to take action against unauthorised construction.

It is expected by law to take action against illegal constructions under the provisions of the MRTP Act of 1966 mentioned above. However, it is quite evident that Mr. Chahal has forgotten these provisions. But the question remains: did Mr. Chahal genuinely forget about these regulations, or did he deliberately ignore them to provide protection for illegal constructions? Throughout his tenure as Municipal Commissioner, Mr. Chahal engaged in the act of shielding developers’ illegal constructions, and that too in an unlawful manner.

Why should Mr. Chahal’s actions not be considered misconduct within the administrative system and dereliction of official duty? Will the newly elected CM of the state Shri Devendra Fadnavis and DoPT take immediate action against Mr.Iqbal Singh Chahal for misconduct within the administrative system and dereliction of official duty?

In conclusion, the tenure of Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal as the Municipal Commissioner of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation has been marred by serious allegations of misusing power and neglecting due process. The scrutiny surrounding his decision to waive penalties raises significant concerns about governance, accountability, and the financial integrity of the BMC. His failure to involve essential oversight bodies, neglect of departmental opinions, and circumvention of established protocols not only undermines the democratic process but also poses a risk to the economic health of the municipality. The unanswered questions regarding his authority to make such decisions and the consequent financial implications further highlight the need for transparency and adherence to legal frameworks in municipal governance. As this controversy unfolds, it serves as a critical reminder of the importance of accountability in public administration and the potential consequences of unchecked authority.

In the forthcoming Part VIII, I will delve into the Seventh question posted to Shri Iqbal Singh Chahal, detailing his response and offering my analysis alongside the facts.

Stay tuned for more…