Mumbai: Sessions Court Asks Magistrate To Reconsider Plea Against Ex-BMC Chief

The sessions court has asked the magistrate court to reconsider the complaint filed by activist Kamlakar Shenoy against the state government and former BMC chief Ajoy Mehta over amendment into the rules of redevelopment of buildings in the city.

The magistrate court had refused to entertain the complaint filed by Shenoy in February 2021 on the ground of want of prosecution sanction against Mehta from the state government. The sessions court, however, said that the magistrate ought to have considered the clause of deemed prosecution sanction in cases where the government fails to respond within 90 days of application.

Shenoy had approached the metropolitan magistrate court, Esplanade, in May 2019. He had claimed that the rules formed in June 2002 made it mandatory for developers to obtain a no objection certificate (NOC) from Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) before issuing the occupation certificate (OC).

Maharashtra Dy CM Devendra Fadnavis Urges BMC Chief To Drop 1st Attempt Pass Condition For Recruitment In Civic Body

Accordingly, the BMC and MHADA officials had to conduct a joint inspection of the new construction and in case of surplus land, it had to be transferred back to MHADA. However, Shenoy claimed that the rules were tweaked by a circular issued by Mehta in December 2017, who was then the civic chief. As per the circular, the BMC said that it will not insist on the NOC from MHADA before granting the OC, the activist asserted, adding that the move led to huge losses for the housing body.

Mumbai: Ex-BMC Commissioner Iqbal Singh Chahal Appointed As ACS In Home Department

Shenoy argued that the rule of getting NOC from the MHADA acted as a mechanism to check on surplus land. However, the MHADA had no role to play after the amendment and developers took advantage of the same, he alleged.

The activist claimed that before filing the complaint, he had approached the state government for prosecution sanction against Mehta but it had not responded. Hence, he pointed out that as the government failed to respond in 90 days, it could be deduced as a deemed sanction. The magistrate had rejected the complaint saying, merely applying for prosecution sanction is not enough.