SBI Term Loan: RLLR: 8.15 | 7.25% - 8.45%
Canara Bank: RLLR: 8 | 7.15% - 10%
ICICI Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.5% - 9.65%
Punjab & Sind Bank: RLLR: 7.3 | 7.3% - 10.7%
Bank of Baroda: RLLR: 7.9 | 7.2% - 8.95%
Federal Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.75% - 10%
IndusInd Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.5% - 9.75%
Bank of Maharashtra: RLLR: 8.05 | 7.1% - 9.15%
Yes Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.4% - 10.54%
Karur Vysya Bank: RLLR: 8.8 | 8.5% - 10.65%

BMC rejects INR 7.9 crore escalation for Goregaon flyover extension

#Law & Policy#Infrastructure#India#Maharashtra#Mumbai City#Goregaon (East)
Last Updated : 23rd Mar, 2026
Synopsis

The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has rejected a proposal seeking an additional cost escalation of around INR 7.9 crore for the Goregaon flyover extension project. The matter was placed before the civic standing committee by the administration, but members did not grant approval and asked for further examination. The committee has directed that a site inspection be conducted before reconsidering the proposal. The flyover project has already seen multiple revisions in its overall cost over time, and concerns related to delays and planning have led to closer scrutiny of further expenditure requests.

The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has turned down a proposal that sought approval for an additional cost escalation of approximately INR 7.9 crore for the Goregaon flyover extension project. The proposal was presented by the civic administration before the standing committee during its meeting held earlier this week.


The extension work pertains to the Mrinaltai Gore Flyover located along SV Road between Ram Mandir Road and Relief Road. The project has been under execution for several years and has already experienced multiple increases in its estimated cost. Initially sanctioned at about INR 209 crore, the project cost has risen over time due to factors such as design modifications, site constraints, and delays in implementation.

During the meeting, members of the standing committee did not approve the additional escalation request. Concerns were raised regarding the justification for the increased cost, leading to the decision to withhold approval. The committee chairperson instructed civic officials to carry out a detailed site inspection and submit a revised assessment before the proposal is reconsidered in a future meeting.

The flyover project has remained under review due to repeated revisions in cost estimates and delays in completion timelines. Over time, elected representatives have expressed concerns about planning efficiency, execution challenges, and the involvement of contractors and consultants in the project. These factors have contributed to increased scrutiny of financial proposals linked to the development.

With the latest decision, the escalation request remains pending, and further action will depend on the findings of the site inspection and subsequent deliberations by the standing committee. Civic officials are expected to present additional clarification and supporting details before any decision on approval is taken in the coming meetings.

Have something to say? Post your comment