Building Permission Timeline, Fire Safety Compliance and Environmental Records Face Fresh Examination

By EX7 News Investigation Bureau

NAVI MUMBAI: An investigation by EX7 News Investigation Bureau, based on documents obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act and other official records, has raised serious questions regarding the sequence of statutory approvals granted to the Godrej Varanya residential project at Plot Nos. 17, 18 and 19, Sector 5A, Kharghar.

The investigation examines whether key construction permissions were issued before certain mandatory statutory conditions had been fulfilled. If established by the competent authorities, such findings could have significant implications for regulatory compliance, public safety, and future project approvals.

It is important to note that the allegations and legal interpretations discussed below have not been adjudicated by any court or regulatory authority. The developer and concerned government agencies would be entitled to present their responses.

Approval Timeline Under Examination

Documents examined by EX7 News indicate the following sequence of events:

• 18 January 2026: CIDCO issued an Original Commencement Certificate (Permit No. CITDA/B/2026/APL/00227).
• 10 February 2026: A Revised Commencement Certificate (Permit No. CITDA/RB/2026/APL/00007) was reportedly issued permitting further structural development.
• 30 March 2026: The First Amended Fire Brigade Provisional No Objection Certificate (NOC) was issued.

The investigation points to a condition contained in the Environmental Clearance which reportedly states that commencement permission should not be granted until all revised statutory NOCs, including the Fire NOC, are obtained.

If the approvals occurred in the sequence reflected in the documents, regulators may be required to examine whether the commencement permissions complied with the applicable statutory conditions.

Fire Safety Approval Raises Additional Questions

The Fire Brigade Provisional NOC reviewed by EX7 News reportedly contains a condition stating that the approval would become ineffective if the required Airports Authority of India (AAI) Aviation NOC was not obtained.

According to RTI documents relied upon by the investigation, the relevant project records available with CIDCO did not include the AAI height clearance or aviation-related permissions.

Whether all aviation clearances were subsequently obtained is a matter that may require clarification from the project developer, CIDCO and the Airports Authority of India.

Environmental Compliance Under Lens

The investigation also examines environmental aspects of the project.

Among the issues highlighted are:

• Declaration regarding the number of existing trees on the project site.
• Excavation estimated at approximately 2,60,000 cubic metres.
• Availability of geotechnical studies.
• Slope stability assessments.
• Minor mineral excavation permissions.
• Site inspection records maintained by concerned authorities.

These issues assume significance because the project is located near the Kharghar hill region, an environmentally sensitive area that has witnessed previous concerns relating to hill cutting and excavation activities.

Questions Regarding Regulatory Records

RTI documents examined by EX7 News reportedly indicate that certain records relating to environmental inspections and excavation permissions were either unavailable or not supplied.

The investigation argues that these gaps warrant an independent verification by the competent authorities to determine whether all statutory requirements were complied with before and during construction.

RTI Compliance Also Questioned

The investigation further alleges delays in providing information sought under the RTI Act.

It is contended that the information was not supplied within the statutory period prescribed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and that document fees were subsequently demanded despite the delay.

The legal implications of these actions, if any, would ultimately depend upon the findings of the competent Information Commission or other appropriate authority.

Legal Action Proposed

According to EX7 News Editor-in-Chief Brahmanand R. Tiwari, statutory representations have been submitted before the concerned authorities seeking regulatory intervention.

The proposed legal actions reportedly include:

• Request for examination of the validity of construction permissions.
• Demand for review of environmental compliance.
• Representation before MahaRERA regarding regulatory issues.
• Proposed proceedings before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), subject to legal advice and filing.
• Objections concerning the grant of Occupancy Certificate until all statutory requirements are verified.

Why This Investigation Matters

Large housing projects involve thousands of prospective homebuyers and substantial public investment. Questions regarding statutory approvals, environmental safeguards, fire safety compliance and regulatory transparency directly affect public confidence.

If regulatory authorities find that approvals were issued in accordance with law, the project may proceed without adverse consequences. Conversely, if violations are established following due process, appropriate legal and administrative action may follow under the applicable statutes.

EX7 News Position

EX7 News states that this investigation is based on RTI records and official documents examined by its investigation team. The publication calls upon CIDCO, Godrej Properties Limited, SEIAA Maharashtra, the Fire Department, the Airports Authority of India and other concerned authorities to place their respective positions on record.

EX7 News remains committed to publishing any official response, clarification or rebuttal received from the concerned agencies or the project developer, in keeping with the principles of fair, balanced and responsible journalism.

(The matter is subject to verification by the competent statutory authorities. All findings referred to in this report are based on documents reviewed during the investigation and should not be construed as a final judicial determination.)