Action Taken Reports in respect of minutes of the 1891st meeting held on 24.09.2026.

1. Action Taken Report in respect of minutes of the 1891st meeting held on 24.09.2026 were discussed.

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the Architect (through OPAAS) for consideration by the Commission.
2. No previous record of the previous approval (formal) and NOC for Completion taken, if any, has been found in the available record of the Commission.
3. The building plan proposal for redevelopment received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinized, and a detailed presentation was given by the architect on Cisco Web Ex meetings who simultaneously provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission. Based on the submission made including drawings, documentations, project report, and the discussion held with the architect etc., the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed during the architect’s presentation that the requisite approvals from the concerned local body, i.e., MCD, and the Chief Fire Officer had already been obtained. However, the same were not substantiated by submitting relevant copies of approvals for the information and record of the Commission.

b) The Commission observed that the floor levels along the front and rear sides, as well as the plinth levels, have not been indicated in the plans, making the proposal difficult to interpret. Further, the sections submitted are not sufficiently self-explanatory. Accordingly, detailed longitudinal and cross-sections, clearly indicating the relevant levels and other essential details, shall be provided to facilitate a better understanding of the proposed design scheme.

c) The Commission observed discrepancies in the submitted drawings, particularly between the rear elevation and the corresponding rear-side 3D view. Further, the boundary wall along the western side of the plot/property has not been indicated. The architect shall address these discrepancies and ensure that all plans, elevations, sections and 3D views are duly coordinated and consistent with one another in the revised submission.

4. Overall, the submission made at the Conceptual Stage was found to be incomplete and contained discrepancies. Accordingly, the proposal is returned to the concerned architect with the advice to address and incorporate all the observations made above, ensure that the proposal accurately reflects the actual site conditions, and submit a comprehensive, point-wise compliance report along with a detailed response to each observation for further consideration by the Commission.