The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has returned the file pertaining to the 13 buildings of Ujjwal Nandadeep CHS in Malad, on the grounds that there are no conflicting structural audit reports. However, it has pulled up BMC officials for disobeying its order to put the structural audit report of Ujjwal Nandadeep society in proper format. The 130 members have decided to continue to oppose the non-transparent procedures adopted by the managing committee to select the developer for redevelopment of the society.

In January a slab collapsed in the society, according to society committee. Following this, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) started process for a structural audit. In same month the society ordered an audit by a BMC empanelled structural auditor. The report of both these audits was out in February. The audit by the P north ward office and the other audit by the managing committee observed that 13 buildings were in dilapidated condition and needed to be immediately vacated and demolished. TAC has said these audit reports don`t conflict.

Of the total 208 society members, 130 had opposed the redevelopment and got an independent structural audit done by a team of experts from the VJTI. Mumbai`s premier engineering institute report tagged these buildings as C-2B (needs structural repair without vacating the premises). But the VJTI audit allegedly did not have a Rating Category in the report and did not generate the Performa B (repair Expenses).

The BMC categories dilapidated buildings on a scale of four : C1, C2A, C2B, and C3. C1 entails immediate evacuation and demolition, C2A (building needs to be vacated in near future for structural repairs), C2B requires structural repairs (without residents vacating the building) and C3 minor repairs. The BMC had issued a C-1 notice to the society. If there are any disputes (two different structural audit reports, the case is referred to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC report is the final order and BMC has to mandatorily implement it. According to rules, this case was referred to TAC as the VJTI report was contradicting the other two audit reports.

Case is rejected

TAC, in its written reply to P North ward office, conveyed that the case has been rejected. But while rejecting the case, the committee passed strong remarks against the local BMC ward office. “The note under reference along with the structural audit reports received by P/North Ward Office are submitted to this office for decision on 11.04.2023 without proper pagination and also not in Nasti (file). 

Therefore the undersigned had directed the concerned Sub Engineer of P/North Ward to put the said documents in an organized manner in file duly paginated and then give the said file to dispatch section of this office. lnspite of these instructions, the concerned Sub Engineer of P/North Ward gave the said papers and structural audit reports in one bundle and not in file & also without proper pagination. As such disobeying the instructions of the undersigned by the concerned Sub Engineer of P/North Ward is not acceptable,” (SIC) the TAC letter mentioned. mid-day is in possession of the TAC letter dated April 12.

Also read: Ujjwal Nandadeep CHS row: Cornered BMC to let experts decide after inspection

The letter further cited, “As per the policy guidelines if there is conflicting opinion of different structural engineers the matter shall be referred to TAC. However, from the report submitted by the P North Ward office it is observed that there is no conflicting structural audit report received by P North ward office. Further TAC gives a decision for individual building, therefore the proposal should have been submitted separately for individual building before the TAC. In view of the above, the complete papers along with the structural audit report are returned for further necessary action in the matter.” (SIC)

The buildings are over 40 years old and in bad shape. Of the 208 members, nearly 100 have vacated their flats. If the society’s managing committee is to be believed, it would cost over Rs 20 crore to repair the buildings and most of the members are not in favour of spending this huge amount on repairs. Those opposing the plans of the committee claim that there are 130 members in their support and the redevelopment decision has been taken in a non-transparent manner and in violation of rules sans majority.

Chairperson speak

Swapnali Darekar, chairperson of the society, speaking to mid-day said VJTI did not conduct the structural audit as per the parameters and required standard. “VJTI personnel have not given any confirmed Rating Category in the report and not generated the Performa B (repair Expenses) which is the main part of the audit. As per the BMC audit report the repairing cost for stability of building works out to around Rs 25 crore. Members are not ready to contribute money for repairs.”

She further claimed that if society members were not happy with developers selected through the tendering process, they should have responded to their appeal. “We did ask those opposing the redevelopment to get builders of their choice and debate the proposal in an open forum. But they refused to participate in any such constructive debate. Instead, those opposing us are trying their best to stall the project. The obstacles are created merely to defame the managing committee of the society, especially a woman who has been elected as chairperson of the society,” Darekar  stated.

Supporting the managing committee`s decision of pulling down these buildings, Darekar stated that many residents have stopped paying maintenance. “For past 10 years not a single rupee hike was introduced in maintenance. Still many don`t pay maintenance. The total outstanding recovery from maintenance is now over R17 lakh. The managing committee is finding it difficult to maintain the society,” she added.

‘Why doubt VJTI?’

The 130 members fighting the case believe it is a clear case of BMC-builder and managing committee nexus. One of the 130 members refuted the charges levelled against them by society’s managing committee. He claimed that the fight between two camps has stooped to such a low level that doubts are being raised over the report from a reputed institute like VJTI. “When TAC says no conflict of report, it means they considered only two reports – one by the BMC and other by the managing committee. When the VJTI report was not considered, how can the expert committee reject our case,” the member said.

The members have decided to continue their opposition to the non-transparent procedures adopted by the managing committee to select the developer. Ashok Pawar, retired assistant commissioner of police, and one of the members from the camp opposing the existing management committee’s decision said, “TAC has categorically mentioned that despite giving instructions to the sub engineer attached to the BMC’s P North Ward office, the civic official did not submit the file in proper format. BMC officers ignoring TAC instruction is enough to prove our case that the managing committee wants us 130 members to be thrown out of the premises for the revolt against them.”

208
No of members in the society

Source link