03 July,2021 07:43 AM IST | Mumbai | A Correspondent
Standing committee members said the administration is only trying to fool the citizens. File pic
All corporators across political parties, and members of the standing committee of the BMC, unanimously opposed the fire service fee if it burdens citizens instead of developers, on Friday. The fire brigade then gave a written reply to the various queries that were raised, but did not withdraw the circular despite the standing committee chairman's instruction to do so. Corporators have called the reply of the fire brigade department an eye wash.
A new circular issued recently mentioned that the fire service fee should be taken from developers or owners/occupiers or architects of the building, and it will be a one-time fee towards the corporation. However, with the occupation certificate given to buildings, it could be possible that the component is levied on housing societies. Besides this, the recovery of the annual fee which is likely to be 1 per cent of the fire service fee, will be added in the property tax bill and will also have to be borne by the residents of buildings.
BJP MLA Ameet Satam had written a strong letter against the fee to the municipal commissioner opposing the move, and claimed it could lead to a scam of crores of rupees. mid-day had reported this on June 30. As the reply that was tabled before the members mentioned the same things that the circular talks about, members said the administration is only trying to fool the citizens.
ALSO READ
Long queues at voting centres as first ever hawkers polls in city begin
Mumbai lakes providing drinking water reach 98.02 per cent capacity
Mumbai weather update: IMD forecasts moderate rainfall for the city
Ganesh Visarjan 2024: 62,569 Lord Ganesha idols immersed till 12 am, says BMC
Mumbai lakes supplying drinking water at 98.15 per cent capacity
A member of the standing committee, Bhalchandra Shirsat of the BJP, said, "We needed answers as to what will happen to buildings which are occupied by residents, and the developer is out of the picture, but no proper response has been given in this matter. The instructions of the standing committee chairman too were not followed, as the administration is far from revoking the circular."
