Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 200
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G. S. KULKARNI, ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
Paradigm Dotom Buildheights Llp, A Limited Liability Partnership Registered - Appellant
Versus
Airports Authority Of India - Respondent
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 27019 OF 2024
Decided On : 17-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Gauraj Shah, Mr. V. A. Joshi,
Maaz Qureshi i/b Chitnis Vaithy & Co., for Petitioner.
Mr. Mayur Shetty a/w Ms. Amrita Dubey, Yash Pitroda for Kochhar & Co.,for Respondent Nos. 1 & 4.
_
Minor procedural lapses in documentation should not invalidate substantive approvals for building height clearance, as established by prior decisions of the Appellate Committee.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Height clearance for building construction - Petitioners challenged the refusal of NOC by the Airport Authority of India (AAI) based on non-compliance with procedural requirements - The court emphasized that minor lapses in documentation should not negate substantive approvals already granted - The petitioners were entitled to the NOC for a height of 84.92 meters AMSL as per prior approvals. (Paras 2, 6, 34, 40)
(B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - The court reiterated that it would not interfere with technical matters unless there is a clear illegality or irrationality in the decision-making process - The decision of the Appellate Committee was upheld as valid and legal. (Paras 36, 39)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, developers of a slum rehabilitation scheme, sought a revised NOC for building heights after prior approvals were not acted upon due to minor documentation issues. The AAI denied the NOC citing procedural lapses.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners had complied with substantive requirements and that the refusal of the NOC was overly pedantic, thus directing the AAI to issue the NOC.
Issues: The main issues were whether minor documentation lapses could invalidate prior approvals and the extent of judicial review over technical decisions made by the AAI.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that procedural lapses should not deprive the petitioners of their substantive rights, and the AAI's decision was not justified given the prior approvals.
Result: Petition allowed; NOC to be issued within four weeks.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.
2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raises an issue in regard to the height of the buildings which were proposed to be constructed and for which a NOC of respondent No.1-Airport Authority of India (for short AAI) was required to be obtained by the petitioners. In particular, the challenge in the petition is to the communication dated 6 June 2023 whereby the petitioners are informed by respondent No.2 – General Manager (Aero) Western Region of the AAI, of the decision of the Appellate Committee-respondent No.3, that as the requirements specified in the letter dated 11 June 2016, issued to the petitioner were not fulfilled by the petitioners, hence, a revised NOC for height clearance would not be issued to the petitioners, as considerable time had lapsed. It is stated that the petitioners’ case needs to be reassessed as per the extant rules, and for such reason, the NOC cannot be issued as per the decision of the Appellate Committee dated 28 July 2022. Also that the NOC dated 11 October 2013 issued to the petitioners is no longer valid, for any further processing of the case.
3. It is on such backdrop, the petitioner is before the Court praying for the following substantive reliefs:
a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari, thereby calling for all the records, proceedings and papers of File No. ATM-16/15/2023-ATM-DOAS and to quash and set aside the Impugned Communication dated 6th June 2023, annexed as Exhibit 11 and the Minutes of Meeting dated 28th July, 2022, annexed as Exhibit -12 hereto, to the extent of Item No. 18 recorded in the Minutes of Meeting dated 28th July, 2022;
b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus, thereby calling for all the records, proceedings and papers of File No. ATM-16/15/2023-ATM-DOAS and restraining the Respondents from withdrawing /revoking the permissions already granted to the Petitioners with respect of the said Buildings, including but not limited to the NOC dated 11th October, 2013 issued vide letter dated1/NOC/MUM/13/NOCAS/217/2423/
c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby calling for all the records, proceedings and papers of File No. ATM-16/15/2023-ATM-DOAS and directing the Respondents to issue the Final No Objection Certificate (NOC) sanctioning the top elevation of 84.92 Meters AMSL in respect of the said Buildings in terms of the Authorization letter dated 11th July, 2016 annexed as Exhibit-E hereto;
d) Without prejudice to prayer (c) and strictly, in the alternative, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby calling for all the records, proceedings and papers of File No. ATM-16/15/2023-ATM-DOAS and directing the Respondents to treat the Authorization letter dated 11th July, 2016 annexed as Exhibit-E as the Final NOC in respect of the said Buildings and strike off the last line therein viz:- "THIS IS NOT AN NOC".
4. The relevant facts are required to be noted: The petitioners are developers, jointly implementing a slum rehabilitation scheme on the land bearing CTS No.343 (Part) admeasuring 13494.83 square meters situated at Village Chembur at Laldonger, Chembur, Mumbai, (for short ‘the said land’). The project involves construction of buildings for rehabilitation of slum dwellers and free sale buildings.
5. It is the petitioners case that in pursuance of the development agreement and the ancillary agreements executed between three co-operative housing societies namely ‘Ekta SRA CHS’, ‘Panchsheel SRA CHS’ and ‘the Vishwa Gautam SRA CHS’, the petitioners had become entitled to and
