SRA usurps BMC’s authority; civic chief chastises SRA CEO in letter

X : @vivekbhavsar

PART I

Mumbai

Senior bureaucrat Bhushan Gagrani, a commissioner of the largest and wealthiest local body authority in Asia, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, also called the BrihanMumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), is concerned about the civic body’s diminishing earnings. He discovered a connection between officers, legislators, and developers who are abusing the BMC’s norms and regulations in order to benefit while severely undervaluing the organisation. He discovered that the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (M.R. & T.P.) Act 1966’s requirements are being broken by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, a transitory provision that is infringing upon the BMC’s authority. In a letter addressed to the CEO of the SRA, Mr. Gagrani has instructed him to take action against the officers at issue in this particular situation.

A letter from civic chief Mr. Gagrani, which is in the possession of TheNews21, reads, For permission and implementation of the development plan and issuing a development permit, the relevant provisions of the M.R. & T.P. Act 1966 is applicable for the whole state, including Mumbai city. For Mumbai city, BMC is the planning authority, and SRA is also a planning authority; however, there are no separate regulations formulated by SRA. The Development Plan and Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034 are prepared by the BMC as an urban local body to which the Government of Maharashtra and the Urban Development Department (UDD) have accorded it. That means DPCR-2034 is eligible for issuing permission by the planning authority, including the BMC and SRA, and there are no separate regulations formulated by the SRA.  

The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act of 1971 outlines the objctive of the SRA is emphasizing the improvement and redevelopment of slum areas in the sate while protecting occupants from eviction. The Act empowers the SRA to survey slum areas, develop rehabilitaion. 

The Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) was established in 1995 with the primary objective of providing free housing to slum dwellers and creating a slum-free Mumbai. However, Many projects initiated by the SRA remain incomplete even after nearly three decades.Delays in project execution have left many slum residents still living in substandard conditions in their original homes. The SRA has been criticized for its builder-centric approach, which prioritizes the interests of developers over the needs of slum dwellers. This approach has resulted in the majority of approved projects being located in upscale areas on the western side of the city and suburbs, where land values are higher and profits for developers are more substantial.The focus on high-value areas has led to uneven development, with slum dwellers in less profitable areas receiving less attention and fewer resources. 

Many slum rehabilitation projects have faced issues such as lack of proper infrastructure, poor quality of construction, and inadequate facilities for residents. The overlapping jurisdiction and lack of coordination between the SRA and other local authorities, such as the BMC, have further complicated the implementation of slum rehabilitation projects. There have been instances of regulatory non-compliance and misuse of rules, leading to inefficiencies and corruption. To address these issues, there is a need for comprehensive reforms in the SRA’s approach and operations.This includes ensuring greater transparency, accountability, and public participation in the planning and execution of slum rehabilitation projects. There should be a focus on equitable development that prioritizes the needs of all slum dwellers, regardless of the profitability of the area they reside in.

It is discovered that SRA is not accomplishing its main goals and is deviating from its initial ambition of building a Mumbai free of slums.Mr Gagarani wrote a letter to the SRA CEO after discovering that the organisation was issuing permissions for redevelopment projects, which are outside of its purview. According to Mr. Gagrani, Regulation 33(10) of the DCPR -2034 contains the provisions for redevelopment of the slum areas declared under the Slum Act. Regulation 33(11) has an additional clause pertaining to the establishment of permanent Transit Camps for impoverished areas.

He further added that there is a provision of clubbing of these two provisions/ schemes,  i.e. 33(10) and 33(11) subject to certain conditions as specified in the respective regulations.  Mr. Gagrani wrote that it is important to note that the BMC is the only planning authority and that, aside from these two DCPR-2034 provisions, the SRA does not have the authority to grant development permissions, either alone or in conjunction with other planning authorities. He emphasised the BMC’s rights in this regard.  By addressing these points, Mr. Gagrani aims to ensure that the redevelopment efforts in Mumbai are conducted within the legal framework, respecting the exclusive rights of the BMC as the primary planning authority.

Mr. Gagrani raises concerns about the issuance of development permits under regulations other than the ones directly linked to the Slum Act, such as Regulations 33(12)(B) and 33(19).  These regulations are exempt from the restrictions of the Slum Act and offer certain allowances, which need careful monitoring to ensure proper implementation. This regulation permits additional Floor Space Index (FSI) up to 5.00, including the FSI permissible under Regulation 30(A)(1). 

The provision takes into account the nearby plot area with developed infrastructure to support the additional load of proposals, which is primarily the responsibility of the BMC. The BMC is primarily responsible for assessing and managing the infrastructure needed to support the additional development allowed under these regulations. Mr. Gagrani emphasizes the importance of complying with the specific conditions and limitations outlined in these regulations. By addressing these concerns and implementing the necessary measures, Mr. Gagrani aims to ensure that development in Mumbai is carried out responsibly and sustainably, respecting both regulatory frameworks and infrastructural capacities.

Gagrani asserted that the SRA’s issuance of development permissions goes beyond its authority as a planning authority.  The SRA’s actions are not in compliance with the provisions of the M.R. & T.P. Act 1966, which governs planning and development regulations in Maharashtra. The SRA is infringing upon the BMC’s authority as the primary Planning Authority in Mumbai. The BMC is the designated body responsible for planning and development permissions, and any encroachment on its authority is unacceptable.

Mr. Gagrani’s letter emphasizes significant issues with the SRA’s approval process and its adherence to legal and regulatory frameworks.  He mentioned in the letter that During the review of the SRA’s approvals, which are sent to the BMC for concurrence or other reasons, it has been discovered that the SRA has frequently approved proposals without properly considering the provisions of the DCPR-2034. In some cases, the SRA has approved proposals in violation of these provisions or has granted relaxations that are not permitted under the relevant regulations or the M.R. & T.P. Act 1966.Approvals granted by the SRA often do not adhere to the stipulated provisions of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034. Such actions constitute violations of the DCPR-2034 and the M.R. & T.P. Act 1966, which are fundamental legal frameworks for planning and development in Mumbai.

Mr. Gagrani’s letter to the CEO of the SRA underscores significant concerns about the misuse of authority and violations of legal and regulatory frameworks.  The SRA is accused of abusing its authority by going beyond the scope specified in the M.R. & T.P. Act of 1966 and the DCPR-2034.  Mr. Gagrani has requested the CEO of the SRA to order the concerned SRA officers to take immediate corrective action.  These actions include ceasing the issuance of permissions that fall outside the SRA’s authorized scope and revoking any permissions that have already been issued in violation of the regulations.  Mr. Gagrani’s letter serves as a critical step in holding the SRA accountable for its actions.  The goal is to ensure that the operations of the SRA align with its intended purpose and the legal framework governing urban development.