MIG so­ci­eties in tizzy over babu’s 16-day flip-flop

Af­ter pass­ing a stay on the re­de­vel­op­ment of six hous­ing so­ci­eties in Ban­dra East on Septem­ber 28, co-op­er­a­tive de­part­ment’s deputy reg­is­trar changes his own or­der on Oc­to­ber 15 with­out any ex­pla­na­tion

Mid Day - - Tenders - SAN­JEEV SHIVADEKAR san­[email protected]

EVEN the state doesn’t know what to make of the on­go­ing bat­tle over one of the city’s big­gest re­de­vel­op­ment projects. Within the span of a month, the state’s de­part­ment of co­op­er­a­tives has passed two con­tra­dic­tory or­ders on six MIG so­ci­eties in Ban­dra East — first, im­pos­ing a stay on the re­de­vel­op­ment, and then back­ing off in the sec­ond one, claim­ing lack of ju­ris­dic­tion.

WITH nearly 8,000 me­tres to play with, the re­de­vel­op­ment of six MIG so­ci­eties in Ban­dra East is among the city’s most prime con­tracts. How­ever, like so many other re­de­vel­op­ment projects, this one too is locked at the cen­tre of a bat­tle be­tween so­ci­ety res­i­dents, who are un­able to agree upon which builder to hand the con­tract to. Now, the two dif­fer­ent fac­tions are ac­cus­ing each other of ir­reg­u­lar­i­ties.

Con­tra­dic­tory or­ders

Adding fur­ther con­fu­sion to the mix, the deputy reg­is­trar of co­op­er­a­tive so­ci­eties, Ba­jrang Jad­hav, has is­sued two con­tra­dic­tory or­ders on the is­sue since Septem­ber. The first or­der was passed on Septem­ber 28, when deputy reg­is­trar Jad­hav is­sued a stay or­der on the en­tire re­de­vel­op­ment process, af­ter be­ing ap­proached by so­ci­ety mem­bers op­posed to the cur­rent manag­ing com­mit­tee. Shirish Parkar, a so­ci­ety mem­ber who is part of this op­po­si­tion, said, “We are not against the project; we too want our so­ci­eties to be re­de­vel­oped. But, not all mem­bers are in favour of the process adopted for se­lec­tion of the de­vel­oper by the ex­ist­ing man­age­ment.”

Just a fort­night later, though, on Oc­to­ber 15, the same of­fi­cial is­sued an­other or­der stat­ing that is­sues raised were not in his purview, and the com­plainants should ap­proach the co­op­er­a­tive court in­stead (mid-day has both or­der copies).

“We won­der what made the of­fi­cial change his first or­der?” Parkar ques­tioned. Deputy reg­is­trar Jad­hav did not re­spond to mid-day’s text mes­sages or calls.

The so­ci­eties, now over 50 years old, had been built by the Ma­ha­rash­tra Hous­ing and Area De­vel­op­ment Author­ity (MHADA) for the Mid­dle In­come Group (MIG). The build­ings were then handed over to the co­op­er­a­tive hous­ing so­ci­eties, com­pris­ing 120 fam­i­lies.

Ir­reg­u­lar­i­ties?

Some so­ci­ety mem­bers have ac­cused that the cur­rent manag­ing com­mit­tee of ir­reg­u­lar­i­ties such as with­hold­ing in­for­ma­tion from res­i­dents and not fol­low­ing the pro­ce­dure for in­i­ma­tion of spe­cial gen­eral body meet­ings to dis­cuss the con­tract.

The man­age­ment mem­bers de­nied all charges and coun­tered with al­le­ga­tions of their own. The claimed that had ad­hered to the so­ci­ety by-laws, and ac­cused the ear­lier com­mit­tee of em­bez­zling funds.

“Over R58 lakh is what we be­lieve has been mis­used by the ear­lier com­mit­tee mem­bers. The money was trans­ferred to five dif­fer­ent ac­counts. We have ap­proached the reg­is­trar, and ac­cord­ingly, and au­di­tor has been ap­pointed for scru­tiny of the books,” said Chetan Me­hta, chair­man of the cur­rent com­mit­tee.

“We have done noth­ing wrong or be­yond the rules. The cur­rent com­mit­tee mem­bers are ready to tes­tify be­fore any author­ity,” Me­hta added.

On the other hand, Ra­jesh Ra­jad­hyak­sha, sec­re­tary of the ear­lier com­mit­tee, said these al­le­ga­tions were false, friv­o­lous and vin­dic­tive in na­ture. “The ex­penses were in­curred for trans­fer of ten­ancy, con­veyance and de­mar­ca­tion. So­ci­ety has done all the work with the ap­proval of the gen­eral body. No work was done with uni­lat­eral de­ci­sion,” he added.

He added, “We will urge MHADA to con­duct a de­tailed in­quiry in this case. No fur­ther de­vel­op­ment should be al­lowed till the in­quiry is com­pleted.”

‘We will urge MHADA to con­duct a de­tailed in­quiry in this case. No fur­ther de­vel­op­ment should be al­lowed till the in­quiry is com­pleted’ Ra­jesh Ra­jad­hyak­sha, for­mer

sec­re­tary of manag­ing com­mit­tee

PIC/NIMESH DAVE

At nearly 8,000 square me­tres, the re­de­vel­op­ment of six MIG so­ci­eties is among the city’s most prime con­tracts.

PIC/NIMESH DAVE

The six MIG build­ings are over 50 years old.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.