Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by a co-operative housing society, a developer, and its director challenging a stop work notice issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and seeking a direction to process building permissions without insisting on a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the naval authorities. The dispute arose from the redevelopment of a property situated approximately 200 metres from a Naval Civil Housing Colony. The petitioners had obtained an Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) in May 2015 and a Commencement Certificate in November 2016, neither of which contained a condition requiring prior approval from the naval establishment. Construction had progressed up to the seventh floor when, in November 2017, MCGM issued a stop work notice based on a letter from the Western Naval Command refusing to grant an NOC. The petitioners contended that the action was arbitrary, ultra vires, and contrary to the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. They argued that the condition of obtaining an NOC was not imposed at the time of sanction and that the stop work notice effectively amounted to an impermissible revocation of planning permission under Section 51 of the Act. Further, they submitted that the requirement of an NOC was not prescribed by any statute but flowed from administrative circulars, and that the circular dated 21 October 2016 issued by the Ministry of Defence, given effect by the State Government's Urban Development Department circular dated 7 November 2016, superseded earlier guidelines and restricted the NOC requirement to specifically listed defence establishments. The subject property was not included in that list. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Mayfair Housing Society Pvt. Ltd. v. MCGM to argue that conditions cannot be belatedly imposed after the grant of IOD. The petitioners also highlighted that the naval authority's refusal was arbitrary as the colony was a residential area, not a sensitive defence establishment, and that several taller buildings already existed between the site and the naval boundary. The matter was argued before a division bench of the High Court, but the operative part of the judgment and the court's final determination are not contained in the provided extract.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai could insist on a No Objection Certificate from the Naval Authorities as a condition for granting planning permission and whether the stop work notice issued based on its refusal is legal and valid.
Law Points
- Planning permission conditions cannot be imposed after grant of Intimation of Disapproval and Commencement Certificate
- Requirement of No Objection Certificate from Defence Establishment governed by circulars issued under Section 154 of MRTP Act
- Circular dated 21.10.2016 supersedes earlier circulars and applies only to listed stations
- Works of Defence Act
- 1903 prescribes procedure for imposing restrictions near defence works
- Balance between security concerns and development rights must be maintained
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 50
Writ Petition No. 3013 of 2018
Ranjit More, Smt. Bharati H. Dangre
Dr. Milind Sathe, Saket Mone, Bhushan Deshmukh, Vishesh Karla, Subit Chakrabarti, V. N. Tendulkar, Ms. Neha Joshi for petitioners; Mrs. P. H. Kantharia, Ms. Vandana Mahadik for MCGM; Mr. Anil C. Singh ASG, Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Parag Vyas for respondent Nos.1 to 3 (UOI); Mr. Kunal Bhange AGP for State
Tirandaz Subha Niketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., M/s Heritage Lifestyles & Developers, Mr. Girish Gangwani
Union of India through Ministry of Defence, Chief of Naval Staff, Flag Officer Commanding in Chief Headquarters Western Naval Command, State of Maharashtra, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, The Municipal Commissioner of MCGM, Executive Engineer Building Proposal II MCGM
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a stop work notice issued by MCGM and seeking directions to process planning permission without insisting on No Objection Certificate from naval authorities.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the letter dated 14.11.2017, a direction to MCGM to process all planning permissions for the building at Kanjurmarg without insisting on an NOC from the Union of India and defence authorities, and to call for records of the refusal letters.
Filing Reason
MCGM issued a stop work notice based on the refusal of NOC by the Western Naval Command, halting construction of the building after it had reached the seventh floor.
Previous Decisions
No prior judicial proceedings mentioned; petitioners had made representations to MCGM and the naval authorities, which were rejected.
Issues
Whether the stop work notice was arbitrary, ultra vires, and without jurisdiction.
Whether a condition requiring NOC from the naval establishment could be imposed after the grant of IOD and Commencement Certificate.
Whether the Naval Civil Housing Colony qualifies as a Defence Establishment warranting NOC under defence circulars.
Whether the circular dated 21.10.2016 supersedes earlier circulars and exempts the subject property from the NOC requirement.
Whether the MCGM’s action contravenes Section 51 of the MRTP Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Dr. Milind Sathe, for the petitioners, argued that restrictions near defence works must be imposed only under the Works of Defence Act, 1903 and that the circular dated 21.10.2016 of the Ministry of Defence, adopted by the State’s circular dated 07.11.2016, restricts the NOC requirement to specifically listed stations, of which the subject property is not one.
It was submitted that the MCGM is bound by the state circular issued under Section 154 of the MRTP Act, which cancelled all earlier guidelines, and therefore insistence on an NOC was illegal.
Reliance was placed on the principle that conditions cannot be imposed after the grant of IOD and Commencement Certificate, as held in Mayfair Housing Society Pvt. Ltd. v. MCGM, and that the stop work notice was effectively a revocation of permission impermissible under Section 51 of the MRTP Act.
The petitioners contended that the authorities had adopted a pick-and-choose approach, as several taller buildings already existed between the site and the naval boundary, and that letters dated 26.12.2016 and 31.11.2016 clarified that the NOC requirement was not applicable to the Navy.
Judgment Excerpts
The condition of seeking prior approval/NOC of the Naval Establishment was not a part of the stipulation.
the MCGM issued a letter on 14.11.2017 directing the petitioner's Architect to stop construction of the work.
the restrictions can be imposed in the manner prescribed in the Works of Defence Act, 1903.
it was not permissible for the MCGM to impose belated condition after it has granted IOD and it cannot issue a notice for stop work for want of NOC.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed directly before the High Court. No prior judicial proceedings are recorded. The petitioners had made representations to the MCGM and naval authorities before approaching the court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Section 51, Section 154
- Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991:
- Works of Defence Act, 1903:
