The direction is contained in an MMRDA letter dated September 8, issued after the authority received a complaint about the structure near the terminal’s VIP arrival and taxi stand area. The planning body said it had granted no permission for the structure and that the applicable Interim Development Plan contains no provision, reservation, allocation or designation of a site for a public place of worship within the notified area.
MMRDA said responsibility for planning, development, construction and maintenance of infrastructure and facilities in the notified airport area rests with MIAL under the Operations, Management and Development Agreement governing the airport. On that basis, it asked the company to take action regarding removal of the structure while following prescribed procedure.
The communication moves the dispute from political allegations to a formal planning determination by the authority responsible for the notified area. It does not, however, amount to an immediate demolition order bypassing statutory safeguards. Any removal action must follow the applicable notice, hearing and administrative requirements, a qualification expressly included in MMRDA’s direction.
Bharatiya Janata Party leader and former MP Kirit Somaiya, who had raised the issue, visited the airport premises with officials on September 3 and alleged that the mosque had been built without authorisation in the taxi parking zone near Terminal 2. He subsequently published a copy of the MMRDA communication and demanded action against those he said were responsible for the construction.
Somaiya has also sought registration of a first information report against trustees and other people connected with the structure. His descriptions of the issue have included politically charged language, but those claims are his own and are separate from MMRDA’s narrower finding that it had issued no permission for the structure and that the development plan contains no designated worship site at the location.
The authority’s letter is significant because it identifies both the planning status of the structure and the agency expected to act. Rather than directing a separate municipal body to execute removal, MMRDA cited MIAL’s obligations within the airport’s notified area and placed the next procedural step with the operator.
MIAL operates Mumbai’s main airport under the concession framework that assigns it responsibility for airport development and maintenance. MMRDA’s communication relies on those responsibilities without making findings on criminal liability or on the motives of any individuals associated with the mosque.
No verified statement from MIAL setting out a timetable for removal was available by Friday afternoon. The authority’s direction therefore establishes the administrative position but leaves the timing and mechanics of enforcement dependent on the process followed by the airport operator and any representations made by affected parties.
Somaiya had said on September 8 that a show-cause notice had been issued over the structure and that he expected further action within about two weeks. That timeframe reflects his expectation and has not been presented by MMRDA as a binding deadline in the letter directing MIAL to proceed according to law.
The dispute centres on a structure situated in a highly regulated airport zone, where land use and construction are governed by the notified development plan and the contractual responsibilities assigned to the airport operator. MMRDA’s position is confined to the absence of planning permission and the lack of any earmarked site for public worship in that plan.
The document also distinguishes land-use approval from the broader dispute surrounding the mosque. Its stated basis is the authority’s planning record: no permission was issued, and no plot was set aside for a public place of worship in the Interim Development Plan. The letter does not establish when the structure was first erected, whether any earlier form of worship existed at the location, or whether permissions were sought from another agency.
