Purandar for the Ahirs, Suniti‑9 for the Bansods; a scandal in Mahayuti from the bungalow…?

Exchange of residences revealed in the October 5 orders…

Mumbai, 5 (Anant Nalavde) – A seemingly minor but politically significant “bungalow game” in the Maha Yuti power structure came to light on Monday. The government bungalow “K‑3 (Purandar)” that was allotted to Nationalist Congress Party Assembly Deputy Chairman Anna Bansode on 9 July 2026 has now been cancelled and he has been assigned the residence “Suniti‑9”. At the same time, the government decided to give Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Council Sachin Mohan Ahir directly the “K‑3 (Purandar)” bungalow instead of “Suniti‑9”. This has again raised questions about the power equations within the Maha Yuti.

The exchange became clear from two separate government orders issued by the General Administration Department on 5 October 2026. Both orders carry the government decision number Shavini‑1526/Pr. No.121/Residence‑2, with Bansode’s order code 202610051504299007 and Ahir’s order code 202610051507291407.

According to the government decision of 9 July 2026, Bansode was allotted the “K‑3 (Purandar)” bungalow. However, that order has now been cancelled and he has been given “Suniti‑9”. On the other hand, Ahir’s allocation of “Suniti‑9” as per the 10 July 2026 decision has been cancelled and he has been given “K‑3 (Purandar)”. Thus, a single order directly swapped the government residences of the two deputy chairpersons.

At the same time, this decision acquires a distinct political context. Anna Bansode of the Nationalist Congress Party, led by Ajit Pawar, is considered a close associate of Ajit Dad, while Sachin Ahir is a senior leader of the Shiv Sena (Shinde) faction. Therefore, the question has arisen in political circles whether the decision to remove the Purandar bungalow from the Nationalist’s Assembly Deputy Chairman and give it to the Shiv Sena Shinde faction’s Legislative Council Deputy Chairman should be viewed merely as an administrative swap or as an indication of the internal power equations within the Maha Yuti.

Notably, the government orders do not mention any political reason behind the change. Consequently, the official rationale for why the decision was made, why Ahir wanted the Purandar bungalow, and why Bansode’s previous allocation needed to be altered has yet to emerge. This has sparked a discussion about whether the political weight is reflected even in the facilities granted to party leaders within the power structure.

Because the Maha Yuti comprises the BJP, Shiv Sena, and the Nationalist Congress Party as the three major ruling entities, the subtle power equations that have reached ministerial positions, revenue sharing, corporations, and now government residences are likely to become a subject of discussion in the near future.

“Purandar” for whom, “Suniti‑9” for whom?

One thing that becomes indisputably clear from this swap is that the two government decisions of 5 October have altered the residences of two constitutional office holders. Therefore, the government must answer whether the motive behind this decision is purely administrative or reflects the political strength within the Maha Yuti. Although the government bungalow exchange has occurred, it has sparked a new debate about the internal power equations of the Maha Yuti.

..........................(End)...........