Full details are available in the attached PDF: Download Now

The meeting discussed the letter (Concerns on Redevelopment) sent by the RdC to the MC on 13 June, 2025 and the way forward regarding MC and RdC working together for the redevelopment project.

There was a general agreement that the MC and RdC should work together amicably in the future.

Pammu clarified that it may not be possible to always give adequate notice for a meeting because of the need to take quick decisions.

It was agreed that this is a valid point and we should try our best to accommodate last minute requests for meetings. At the same time, meetings should be avoided when it is reasonably clear that members are unlikely to meet – e.g. working hours during work days. It was also agreed that meetings will be held in an orderly manner with point-by-point discussion and conclusion of the agenda items. It was also agreed that minutes of the meeting should be drafted immediately or as soon as possible after conclusion of the meeting so that we clear written record of what was discussed and decided.

The chronological order of the discussion regarding the letter, Concerns on Redevelopment, then proceeded in the reverse order because it was felt that the greatest source of angst and mistrust arose from the returning of the EMDs.

Members of the MC admitted that it is clear, in hindsight, that the returning of the EMD’s by the MC was a mistake. However, the MC maintained that this was not an intentional act to overrule any guidance of the General Body of members. Rather, it was a misunderstanding. It was not understood by the MC then, that the returning of the EMDs implied cancellation of the bids. The MC agreed to express their regret regarding this mistake to the members at large.

The RdC decided to accept this position of the MC in the interest of progressing on the redevelopment project. While the RdC accepts the MC’s explanation, it cannot absolve the MC of its past mistakes. Therefore, guardrails must be put in place to ensure that such errors do not recur.

The MC explained that the communication with the PMC regarding the preparation of the tender documents was administrative and there was no case or intention to avoid to the RdC. The RdC accepted this explanation.

Regarding the eligibility of Sonal Kotnis as member of the Managing Committee, the RdC explained that the eligibility of lack of it is not for the RdC to opine. The RdC’s limited concern is that if she continues while she is not eligible, then it puts the redevelopment project at risk to the extent that all decisions of the MC regarding the redevelopment project can be challenged. The MC has been alerted about this and the RdC expects the MC to take an informed and legally sound decision. The MC informed that they are waiting for legal advice on the matter to take a decision.

The RdC also offered that in the event that Sonal has to vacate her position in the MC, she is welcome to join the RdC and continue her contribution to the redevelopment project.

Finally, on the appointment of the consultant, Naren Kuwadekar, the RdC held its views that the appointment was improper and should be cancelled. The MC did not offer any explanation regarding the hiring of the consultant. They also did not argue to resist the categorical position of the RdC that the appointment be cancelled. The RdC extended its participation in hiring a consultant through proper processes and with the consent of the SGM.

The MC stated that it would formally reply to the RdC questions as this is also necessary for the records.

Since all the points in the letter Concerns of Redevelopment were discussed, the meeting concluded at about 8:45 pm.