Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the stop work notice dated 24 October 2025 issued by MHADA and the insistence on a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Naval Authorities (INS Trata) as a precondition for construction/redevelopment. The petitioner, Techno Freshworld LLP, was the developer appointed by respondent No. 4, a co-operative housing society, to redevelop a plot at Worli, Mumbai. The land, owned by BMC and leased to MHADA, was sub-leased to the society. The old building, constructed in 1953, had become dilapidated, and the society undertook redevelopment under DCPR 2034, entering into a development agreement with the petitioner in 2022. The petitioner obtained Intimation of Approval, Commencement Certificate, and completed shore piling. It applied for further commencement certificate for the rehab building on 6 December 2023. Under Regulation 11(4) of DCPR 2034, if no decision is communicated within 15 days, the certificate is deemed granted. MHADA did not respond within time, leading to deemed grant on 21 December 2023. Despite follow-ups, MHADA rejected the application on 9 February 2024 without reasons. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1437 of 2024, and MHADA eventually granted a further commencement certificate on 5 April 2024, leading to disposal of that petition. Later, MHADA issued a stop work notice on 24 October 2025, halting construction and denying occupation certificate for want of an NOC from the Navy. The petitioner contended that the property is 528.82 meters from INS Trata and beyond any regulatory requirement. The Ministry of Defence circulars had changed over time; the circular of 23 December 2022 restricted NOC to 50 meters but was kept in abeyance on 23 February 2023, creating a regulatory vacuum. Previous decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of a special leave petition in a similar matter had held that NOC from the Navy is not mandatory. The petitioner sought quashing of the stop work notice and a direction to MHADA to process applications without insisting on the NOC. The court’s final decision is not contained in the excerpt provided.
Headnote
A) Defence and Security - Construction Near Military Establishments - Requirement of NOC from local military authority - Works of Defence Act, 1903; Ministry of Defence circulars dated 18.05.2011, 18.03.2015, 17.11.2015, 04.04.2016, 23.12.2022, 23.02.2023 - The court traced the evolution of guidelines requiring NOC for construction within specified distances from defence establishments, noting that the circular of 23.12.2022 restricted NOC to 50 meters but was kept in abeyance on 23.02.2023, resulting in no extant operative circular governing the requirement, and that a letter from the Defence Minister had stated that absence of response from LMA is deemed no objection, leaving the final decision to the State Government or municipal authority. (Para 8) B) Building and Development - Deemed Grant of Commencement Certificate under DCPR 2034 - Non-response by planning authority within 15 days leads to deemed grant - Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034, Regulation 11(4) - The court noted that under Regulation 11(4), if the Executive Engineer does not communicate a decision within 15 days of receiving an application for further commencement certificate, the certificate is deemed to have been granted on the expiry of that period; in the present case, the petitioner’s application submitted on 06.12.2023 was not decided, so deemed grant occurred on 21.12.2023, and a similar subsequent application also resulted in deemed grant on 27.02.2024. (Paras 13-15, 17) C) Building and Development - Validity of rejection without reasons - An order devoid of reasons is non-est - DCPR 2034, Regulation 11(4) - The court observed that the Executive Engineer’s note dated 09.02.2024 rejecting the application for further commencement certificate without any reasons was unsustainable and of no effect in law, particularly when the statutory deeming provision had already vested rights in the petitioner. (Paras 16) D) Constitutional Law - Earlier binding decisions on NOC requirement - Issue of mandatory NOC from naval authorities has been settled by this court and Supreme Court’s dismissal of SLP - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The judgment refers to a series of decisions of this court rejecting the Navy’s stand on NOC requirements, and notes that the Supreme Court confirmed the Bombay High Court’s decision in Union of India v. State of Maharashtra by dismissing the special leave petition, indicating that the issue is not res integra. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether MHADA could require a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Naval Authorities as a precondition for granting further commencement certificate and occupation certificate for a redevelopment project located beyond 50 meters from the defence establishment; and whether the stop work notice issued for non-submission of such NOC is valid given the regulatory framework and previous court decisions.
Law Points
- Mandatory NOC from defence for construction
- deemed commencement certificate under DCPR 2034
- effect of absence of circular
- binding precedents on NOC requirement
- maintainability of stop work notice
