Saturday, Apr 20, 2024 | Last Update : 08:15 PM IST
Minister stayed MMRDA from razing BKC eatery
However, the Bombay high court rejected the plea saying that there was no evidence of enrichment of Mr Patil due to the case.
Mumbai: Friday’s fire at two pubs in Lower Parel’s Kamala Mills compound, which claimed 14 lives, has laid bare irregularities in the construction of hotels and pubs in Mumbai. So much so that Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis has ordered immediate safety audits into all structures and assured action against illegalities.
Mr Fadnavis has also assured action against officers who overlooked irregularities. There is also a case however where the chief minister’s colleague in the ministry, Ranjit Patil, MoS urban development, stayed the order of demolition by the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) of one hotel, when issuing such order does not come under his jurisdiction.
A café named Spice and Grains Overseas Limited, located in the Bandra-Kurla Complex (BKC), had some illegal construction on the ground and first floor.
Though there was no safety concern raised by MMRDA in its report, misuse of space for commercial purposes was the main objection.
MMRDA had sent a demolition notice to the cafe on May 26, 2016, but the café owner wrote to Mr Patil, requesting him to stay the MMRDA order. While the letter was written by the café owner on August 9, 2016, Mr Patil’s department issued the stay order on August 22, 2016, which read, “The MMRDA’s order to the hotel is given stay. It will be right to hear both sides and take decisions. Date regarding meeting to hear this issue will be conveyed later.”
Meanwhile, right to information (RTI) activist Pravin Wategaonkar sought details of the issue and appealed the stay with the Bombay high court. Mr Wategaonkar asked the court to direct filing of a FIR against Mr Patil in the matter as there was a huge scam involved in staying the MMRDA order.
However, the Bombay high court rejected the plea saying that there was no evidence of enrichment of Mr Patil due to the case.
At the same time though, the court passed an important observation in its order regarding the case, saying, “Order passed by respondent no. 4 (Mr Patil) was an order passed without jurisdiction, i.e. an order not sustainable in law.”
