Not the first instance of Mumbai civic body receiving court rap for ‘mala fide’ conduct

Observers say the inclination of BMC to do the bidding of “its political masters” raises a question mark on the independence of the civic body and its ability to impose rules in a fair manner.

While Latke’s is the most recent example, the BMC has been reprimanded for its behaviour on more than one occasion both during the rule of the previous Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government and the present Eknath Shinde-Devendra Fadnavis ruling dispensation for “arbitrarily” imposing rules.

Last month, on September 23, in a setback to CM Shinde-led ruling alliance, a division bench of Justice Ramesh D Dhanuka allowed the Uddhav Thackeray group to hold its annual rally, Dussehra Melawa, at Shivaji Park on October 5, even as it pulled up the BMC for “abuse of power” in denying permission to the gathering. The Shinde faction had also staked claim to holding Dussehra Melawa at Shivaji Park and sought permission for the same. However, it later organised its rally on MMRDA grounds at Bandra-Kurla Complex (BKC).

The court said BMC had refused permission to the Sena on “flimsy” ground and “that too after four weeks since the receipt of application and close to Dussehra festival.” The court said the decision was taken in “unjustified manner” and the same was “not bonafide.”

Three days prior to this, on September 20, ruling in a plea by BJP leader and Union Minister Narayan Rane, the Bombay HC ordered demolition of unauthorised portions in an eight-storey Juhu bungalow and reprimanded the BMC for its “inconsistent stand”. It noted that while the BMC had given a no-objection certificate (NoC) on deciding a second regularisation application filed by Rane’s firm on July 11, the civic body, on June 3, rejected the first application from Rane, which was upheld by the HC. On September 26, Supreme Court dismissed a plea by Rane’s firm challenging the HC order and granted it three months to demolish the structures while allowing the BMC to take action as per law later. The Thackeray-led government was in power when the first application was rejected by the BMC.

Similarly, during MVA rule in 2020, BMC had its run-ins with actor Kangana Ranaut, known for being vocal about her support to the BJP-ruled Union government. Ranaut had made comments against then ruling state government and Mumbai Police, following the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput. The BMC had demolished a portion of Ranaut’s Pali Hill Bungalow on September 9, 2020, following which she moved the HC. In a ruling on November 27, 2020, the HC said, “Demolition of Kangana’s House is malicious, BMC acted illegally.”

Last year, on April 5, in a relief to BJP-nominated BMC corporator Bhalchandra Shirsat, the Bombay HC had set aside the decision of the general body of BMC ratifying the Standing Committee chairman’s decision to disqualify Shirsat from the panel. The court held that the act of removing Shirsat from the panel merely on the ground that he is a “nominated councillor” and not an “elected councillor” does not have statutory support and cannot be countenanced in law.

Analysts are of the opinion that the BMC’s actions are driven by pressure from the ruling government. “Currently, BMC is being run by a state-appointed administrator under direct control of the state government. The government is exerting its power on the civic administration to make it work as per its own benefits,”  said Dr Surendra Jondhale, a political analyst.“The situation would have been different if the term of corporators had not got over. That way, an elected mayor would have been there in the BMC, which would have limited state government’s intervention”.