A growing storm is brewing around the Bank of Maharashtra (BoM)’s controversial decision to shift its corporate headquarters from its iconic Lokmangal building in Pune's Shivajinagar to a rented space in Baner. The move, executed quietly but ceremoniously inaugurated in September 2025 in the presence of Union minister of finance Nirmala Sitharaman, has triggered outrage among shareholders, employee unions and transparency advocates who question the necessity and the motives behind leasing a private property at an annual rent of over Rs21 crore.
Noted activist and shareholder Vivek Velankar, who has been persistently raising questions through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, has exposed glaring contradictions in the Bank’s own explanations. A letter sent to him by the BoM’s company secretary, Vishal Sethia, in August 2025 stated that the (Bank) board had decided to lease the Baner premises on 27 August 2024, because the 47-year-old Lokmangal building had become inadequate to accommodate the growing staff and new business verticals. The letter added that an external consultant had been appointed to assess the long-term usage of the Bank’s properties and that the College of Engineering Pune (COEP) would be consulted for a structural audit of Lokmangal.
However, in a subsequent RTI response, the Bank contradicted its earlier position, stating that the structural audit had actually been carried out in 2018, seven years earlier, and that the report deemed internal and confidential could not be shared under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act. Even more puzzling, the BoM invoked Section 8(1)(j)—meant for personal information unrelated to public interest—to deny access to a report funded entirely with public money.
Mr Velankar has questioned how the Bank could justify putting hundreds of employees at risk by keeping them in a supposedly unsafe building for seven years if the audit indeed found Lokmangal unfit. “If the report really existed since 2018, why did BoM continue operations there for years, and why are some departments still working from Lokmangal? If the building was unsafe, how could it remain partially occupied even now?” he asked, adding that the Bank’s evasive replies point to 'something seriously wrong'.
The opacity has raised suspicions that the 'structural weakness' argument may have been used as a pretext for shifting operations to a high-rent private property. The lease deed, according to details confirmed by union leader Devidas Tuljapurkar, covers a 125,000sqft (square feet) complex owned by six private individuals, collectively represented through a power of attorney holder. The rent has been fixed at Rs155/sqft, with a lease period of five years, renewable twice—effectively locking the bank into a 15-year commitment worth nearly Rs380 crore.
“The Lokmangal building is a heritage asset of the bank and an emotional symbol for employees across India,” says a joint statement from four major unions—All India Bank of Maharashtra Employees Federation, Bank of Maharashtra Officers Organisation, Bank of Maharashtra Officers Association, and All India Bank of Maharashtra Workers Organisation.
The unions observed ‘Defend Lokmangal Day’ on 23 September 2025, urging BoM management to stop the move and ensure transparency. Members wore badges and updated their social media statuses to protest what they called a 'reckless and opaque' decision.
The unions argue that Lokmangal, inaugurated in 1978 by then prime minister (PM) Morarji Desai, represents not just a building but the identity of the Bank itself. The structure, built on land purchased in the 1970s after years of advocacy by BoM’s employee-director Suresh Dhopeshwarkar, was constructed to embody the institution’s self-reliance. “This building has stood as the face of the Bank for nearly half a century. The management’s move to rent a private property at exorbitant cost, instead of redeveloping its own premises, defies both logic and legacy,” the statement says.
In its letter to Mr Velankar, the Bank confirmed that no money had been spent on furnishing the new Baner office and that no space was lying vacant in its Bajirao Road property, Janmangal. However, unions and insiders question these claims. They point out that around Rs3 crore has already been spent on renovating Lokmangal over the past five years, contradicting the claim of structural unsoundness. "If the building required reconstruction, why was public money spent on repairs?"
Moreover, alternative options were available. Mr Tuljapurkar noted that the Bank could have explored acquiring land through MHADA or even purchased government-owned surplus land from Hindustan Antibiotics or the National Chemical Laboratory, both in Pune and available for sale. “Instead, the management chose a privately owned property that guarantees massive rental outflow for 15 years. Who benefits from this?” he asked.
The controversy has been compounded by the fact that no representatives of employees, officers, depositors, or farmers have been appointed to the Bank’s board for over a decade. This vacuum, according to unions, has allowed top executives to make arbitrary decisions without adequate oversight.
“Public sector banks are accountable to the people and the government. Yet, when decisions involving hundreds of crores of public money are made without stakeholder consultation, it raises serious concerns about transparency and governance,” says Mr Tuljapurkar. “BoM board is supposed to have 14 directors representing key sections such as depositors, agriculture, law, co-operatives, employees, officers, and chartered accountants. Today, only five directors are on the board, with crucial posts — including those of the audit expert, employee and officer representatives — lying vacant. This has effectively turned it into a managing director (MD)-driven board with no real checks and balances. The decision to move to costly rented premises was taken in this vacuum, without transparency or proper oversight.”
Adding to the unease, BoM has not clarified whether it plans to sell or redevelop the Lokmangal property. The company secretary’s email from August stated that redevelopment was under study, but the RTI reply implies the structural report already exists. “If redevelopment was genuinely under consideration, why lease such an expensive property for 15 years?” Mr Velankar asks.
Union leaders also point out the symbolic and cultural significance of the Lokmangal building. Built with the vision of making the Bank of Maharashtra a 'people’s bank', it represents a cornerstone of the institution’s Marathi heritage. With over 1,000 branches in Maharashtra and sponsorship of the Maharashtra Gramin Bank, the Bank has historically served as a financial lifeline for farmers, small traders, and industries in the state.
“Lokmangal is not just a building — it is a brand, an emotion, and a symbol of people’s faith in the Bank of Maharashtra,” Mr Tuljapurkar says, adding, “It is shocking that the Bank became the first public sector institution to shift from its own premises to a rented one, that too ceremoniously inaugurated by the finance minister. Employees, unions, and stakeholders were excluded from the event, while dissenting voices are being suppressed. The government must probe this deal and hold both the board and the regulator accountable for this breach of trust.”
The unions have also drawn parallels to recent controversies in other public sector banks (PSBs), such as the Union Bank of India’s Rs7.25 crore book purchase scandal, to highlight the urgent need for independent scrutiny of top-level decisions. They have called for a high-level investigation by the ministry of finance and the central vigilance commission (CVC) into the rationale and beneficiaries of the lease deal.
Meanwhile, BoM’s communication strategy has done little to allay suspicion. While FM Sitharaman inaugurated the new office on 25 September 2025, the Bank did not publicly announce whether this marked a permanent relocation or a temporary shift. Several departments continue to operate from Lokmangal, further deepening confusion about the long-term plan.
For many employees and shareholders, the move appears to symbolise not growth but detachment from the institution’s roots, heritage and ethos of prudence. “When a public sector bank abandons its own headquarters to rent private property for Rs2 crore a month, it is not just a financial question—it is an ethical one,” Mr Velankar, who is also a shareholder of BoM, says.
As the controversy unfolds, the central question remains unanswered: Why did a bank that owns a structurally sound, historically significant headquarters choose to rent a private complex for 15 years at enormous public cost?
Until the Bank of Maharashtra comes clean about the structural audit, the lease terms and the intended future of Lokmangal, the suspicion that the move masks something more than logistics will continue to grow.
????????????? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ???????? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??????. ????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?
Being a shareholder of this Bank, I demand CBI enquiry in this case.
Surely, only 5 Directors taking this HUGE EXPENSE decision to move to PRIVATE RENTED PLACE smells of hidden agenda & probable money bags ???? influences.
Through impartial INVESTIGATION is must & Bank Depositors & Shareholders must demand open disclosures from 5 Directors
This n the present private property rental affair needs public scrutiny.
Public money to be looted for private gains