Malabar Hill Reservoir: Final Report Delay Sparks Allegations of Scam and Fraud

Concerns mount among residents and activists as February nears its conclusion with no sign of the long-awaited final report on the Malabar Hill reservoir. Despite expectations, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has remained silent on the reservoir's status, leaving many anxious for updates. The Malabar Hill Environmental Protection Group has alleged possible scams and fraud in the reservoir's reconstruction, intensifying the call for transparency and clarity on the issue.

"The interim report ruled out the demolition of the Malabar Hill reservoir and suggested only minor repairs for the structure. If it is this clear, then why is the final report stalled? We have been following up on the matter through emails, The BMC commissioner asked to speak to the Additional Commissioner (projects) and he directed us towards the head of the committee," said Dr. Nilesh Bakshi, a representative of Malabar Hill Environmental Protection Group. 

With the delay in the final report, the residents also questioned the necessity of spending Rs. 700 crore for the reconstruction of the 137-year-old Malabar Hill reservoir at a press meet today. Ravi Mandrekar, a Structural Engineer, highlighted discrepancies in BMC's actions and said, "After a structural audit of the tank in 2017, the estimated cost of the project was Rs. 185 crores that increased to Rs. 700 crores. The project also includes the construction of a new tank of 91 ML, costing an additional Rs 700 crore and atleast 200 trees need to be transplanted and 190 trees to be cut down. The project in total is Rs. 1400 crores scam, for which taxpayer money is wasted."

Furthermore, the residents' group accused BMC of manipulating the structural audit and committee appointments to advance its agenda. They criticized the composition of the seven-member committee, alleging conflicts of interest among appointed experts and BMC's attempt to influence the outcome in its favour. 

BMC established a seven-member committee to assess various feasibility aspects of the project. The panel comprised three experts from IIT Bombay - Professors Alok Goyal, R S Jangid, and Jothi Prakash, Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Special Engineering) CH Kandalkar, three resident experts Vasudev Noori and A Seth, and architect Rahul Kadri. Residents have accused the BMC of later introducing Dasaka Murthy into the committee so that Kandalkar has the casting vote and ensures decisions favour the BMC.

Ravi Mandrekar pointed out conflicts of interest among the nominated IIT professors, who had prior consultancy ties with BMC. Despite the interim report's findings against demolition, the committee members reportedly refused to sign, raising suspicions of BMC's attempt to discredit the report. 

Overall the allegations, LokmatTimes tried to connect to Deputy Municipal Commissioner CH Kandalkar but he did not respond. 

Background History:
In 2017, during an audit conducted by D.D. Kulkarni, the report outlined recommendations such as installing a leakage monitoring system, constructing an inspection platform, and addressing inadequate load-bearing columns. However, it did not mention the stability and safety of the structure.

The same audit report was then reviewed by Dr Alok Goyal of IIT Bombay, who proposed building an additional tank of 20 to 25 ML capacity and suggested a phased demolition and reconstruction approach. Ravi noted, "Pednekar and associates, the son of the chief engineer, were tasked with preparing designs. Subsequently, a contract was awarded to a contractor who was instructed to consult three experts- Dr. R. S Jangid, Dr. Bambole, and Dr. Shashank Mehendale. Surprisingly, none of them visited the site and issued a report recommending the complete demolition and reconstruction of the tank."

With over 600 members, the Environmental Protection Group raised pertinent questions about why these reports overlooked the safety and stability of the structure, why a 91 mL tank was deemed necessary without inclusion in the contract, and why the contract was awarded without a tender process.