Archive report · 2026-09-24
The BMC Standing Committee approved appointing IIT Roorkee to review a proposed alternative reservoir at Malabar Hill on 23 September 2026. The review, reported at ₹22 lakh excluding GST, concerns designs intended to support repairs to the existing reservoir. It was not a completed technical certification or proof that construction had finished.
Why did the BMC want an alternative tank?
Mid-day described a proposed 52-million-litre tank alongside restoration of the historic reservoir at Feroz Shah Mehta Garden. The administration said chambers of the existing structure would need to stop storing water during repairs and that additional capacity was intended to maintain supply to parts of South Mumbai.
The Times of India reported that the latest proposal involved a three-tier design and a valve gallery. IIT Roorkee would independently examine plans prepared by project consultant Pednekar Associates. The institute’s earlier assessment had supported repairing the existing reservoir rather than the original demolition-and-reconstruction approach.
Tree concerns remained part of the debate
The Times of India recorded objections from Congress representative Ashraf Azmi and MNS representative Yashwant Killedar about greenery. The reports discussed a reduction from the original tree-impact figure but contained inconsistent wording around the revised count. This article does not turn those differing statements into a single certified tree inventory.
A design review and an assessment of tree effects answer related but different questions. Structural suitability does not automatically settle the choice of footprint, and reducing an earlier impact estimate does not mean that no trees would be affected. A final plan needs its own clear, dated inventory and mitigation record.
What should follow the review?
The useful output would identify the alternatives examined, the reasoning behind the chosen arrangement and any conditions attached to it. The public could then compare that recommendation with the construction proposal actually taken forward. Approval to pay for expert scrutiny is only the start of that accountability chain.
For South Mumbai residents, the operational purpose is continuity of supply while an ageing facility is repaired. For garden users and environmental scrutiny, the issue is the effect on the adjoining landscape. Those concerns should be assessed together rather than assuming one has disappeared because the other has been addressed.
At this archive cut-off, the confirmed event was committee approval of the independent review. The report does not imply that IIT Roorkee had already endorsed the latest design or that later permissions and works were complete.
Quick answers
Did the committee certify the final engineering design?
No. It approved appointing an institute to review it.
What storage capacity was proposed?
A 52-million-litre alternative reservoir, according to the reports.
Did the review approval resolve all tree concerns?
No. Tree impact and the final design still required clear records.
Sources and archive context
Mid-day, 24 September 2026: restoration rationale and review
The Times of India, 23 September 2026: committee approval, design and tree objections
This report records the position at the stated historical publication date. Proposals, allegations and anticipated events are not presented as final outcomes.
More Mumbai political news · IndianVoter newsroom
Image source
The Hanging Gardens on Malabar Hill photographed on 1 January 2009. Archive location photograph; not the reviewed reservoir design or evidence of trees affected in 2026. Photo: Bahnfrend / Wikimedia Commons original file page · CC BY-SA 3.0. Resized where applicable; display crops may be applied. The photograph remains under the linked licence.
Join the discussion