Mumbai News: BMC Denies RTI On Legal Fees In Hotel City Kinara Fire Case, Watchdog Foundation Cries Foul

Citizens' group, Watchdog Foundation, has objected to the denial of information on the legal fees spent by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation for engaging a senior counsel in the writ petition on the fire at Hotel City Kinara restaurant in Kurla on October 17, 2015 that killed eight people, including seven students.

Watchdog Foundation had filed an application under the Right To Information Act 2005 for the information on April 29, 2025. In its response on May 5, 2025, the BMC refused to provide the information, citing a judgment by the Central Information Commission and Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005, claiming the information is exempt.

Watchdog, in its response to the reply, said that the denial is unacceptable and reflects a lack of transparency, especially in a matter of grave public interest. In its letter sent to the BMC and the state Chief Minister on May 10, 2025, Watchdog Foundation said that as a public authority funded by taxpayer money, the BMC has a moral and legal obligation to disclose how much funds were spent on legal fees to defend this case, particularly when it appeared to prioritise litigation over providing compensation to the aggrieved families.

The parents of the deceased filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, seeking justice and accountability from the BMC after the Lokayukta dismissed their complaint. The fire was apparently caused by a short circuit in the electrical cables and a gas leak. The restaurant had allegedly made illegal additions.

Advocate Godfrey Pimenta of Watchdog Foundation said that the BMC's denial of information suggests that they can spend extravagantly on a senior counsel to fight this case, yet claims an inability to compensate the parents of the deceased students—a clear misuse of public resources. Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, which pertains to fiduciary relationships, does not apply here, as the information sought pertains to public expenditure, not personal or confidential data. Moreover, the CIC judgment referenced does not broadly exempt such disclosures, especially when the public interest outweighs any claimed exemption, as per Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, said Pimenta.

Pimenta added that the BMC’s refusal to provide this information undermines the spirit of the RTI Act, which is to promote transparency and accountability. He said that he will approach the First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, the Central Information Commission and the Bombay High Court if the BMC does not provide the information.

news