Mayor bars town planning official Somnath Kekan from NMMC office until Avani society report is tabled

The redevelopment of Avani Co-operative Housing Society in Vashi Sector 9, Navi Mumbai, has become a major controversy in the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Serious objections were raised against Somnath Kekan, assistant director in the town planning department, over the 2.00 FSI sanctioned for the redevelopment, the 32-metre-wide road, the building permission and the development rights of the plot. The corporation has since taken a tough stand.

Notably, even before the full inquiry report comes before the general body, the mayor has directed that legal action be started to cancel the building permission concerned. The mayor has also ordered the corporation not to let Kekan enter its building until the inquiry report is presented in the House.

In the case of the "Naivedya" and "Albela" buildings in the same Vashi Sector 9, a high-level inquiry committee of the state government has given Kekan a complete clean chit. Despite this, the ruling BJP has now tightened the noose around him in the Avani case before the report is in.

The issue was raised under item number 61 at the corporation's adjourned general body meeting of October 13, 2026. It was placed before the House in connection with a resolution of September 8, 2026. Several technical and legal questions were raised over the redevelopment of the plots of Avani Society and Air India Employees Maharaja Co-operative Housing Society in Vashi.

BJP corporator Bharat Nakhate raised questions on the redevelopment of Plot No. 16 and buildings 47 to 60 of Condominium No. 16 in Vashi Sector 9. According to records, the total area of these plots is about 6,288.39 square metres. FSI of 3.00 has been sanctioned for this redevelopment. The question is whether the societies concerned can really get the benefit of the 32-metre-wide road.

It was stated that part of this 32-metre road adjoins the Avani society's plot. But it was said in the House that the position must be made clear on the consent needed to use the road, the registered agreement, development rights and CIDCO's permission.

Nakhate demanded that the provisions of the UDCPR rules, the required width of the entry road and the actual area of the plot be examined. On the basis of records, it was also asked that it be checked whether the societies are entitled to the 32-metre road and whether the additional FSI was given on that basis. Papers on the sanctioned plans, building permission, commencement certificate, revised permissions, premium, infrastructure charges, TDR and ancillary FSI will also be examined.

The most important decision is that if irregularities are found in the approval process, the necessary legal action will be started to cancel the building permission and the commencement certificate. This includes giving notice to those concerned and hearing their side, issuing a show-cause notice and then issuing a final order with reasons. If it is proved that wrong information was given or important facts were concealed, action to cancel the approval will follow. The administration has been asked to take steps towards cancelling the permission even before the final report, which is why the decision is being talked about.

The mayor has also ordered that the records and reports on the whole matter be called for and studied closely. The order barring Kekan's entry has been given to the commissioner. The administration has been made responsible for examining the records, approval documents, CIDCO's permission, road entitlement and the FSI calculation, and placing a detailed report at the next general body meeting.

What the law says about action against officials is also important. Under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and administrative laws, the general body is a policy-making body. It has the power to pass resolutions, but the MMC Act does not give the general body a statutory power to directly suspend an official or bar the official from coming to the office. Under Section 56 of the Act, the primary powers to decide disciplinary action, suspension or other punishment against the corporation's officers and employees rest with the municipal commissioner.