The court ruled that a redevelopment project cannot be stalled due to the lack of a No Objection Certificate from a defaulting previous developer, provided that the termination of the earlier Development Agreement is unchallenged.

JUDGMENT :

G. S. KULKARNI, J.

1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being pressed only for the following prayer:

“C. issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, direction directing the said Respondent Nos. 1-3 not to insist on a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Respondent No. 5 and / or the Respondent No. 6, their subordinates, consultants or any other person claiming through them, as a condition prerequisite to processing any application for development, permission or NOC that the Petitioner may make either through themselves or through the Respondent No. 4, in furtherance of the Development Agreement dated 15th March, 2024.”

2 The Petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society formed by the Municipal Staff and is the owner of land alongwith the building stated to be situated at Irla – Village, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai-400056. The existing building consisted of Ground + 3 upper floor, having 13 residential flats. The Building was in a dilapidated condition. Accordingly, in a Special General Body Meeting held on 31^st January 2010, a resolution was passed by the petitioner to reconstruct / redevelop the said Building by appointing a developer. Accordingly one Meeti Developers Private Limited (for short Meeti Developers) was appointed as the developer to undertake the redevelopment. A Development Agreement dated 20^th December 2010 was entered between the Petitioner and Meeti Developers. Meeti Developers proceeded to undertake the redevelopment / construction of the new building which was to be totally of 14 flats. However, the construction is stated to have progressed up to 7 slabs and could not be taken forward as Meeti Developers was in severe financial difficulties. It is Petitioner’s case that proceedings were initiated against Meeti Developers at the behest of one Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). It appears to be not in dispute that several obligations under the Development Agreement as entered into between the Petitioner and Meeti Developers were not performed and/or were defaulted by Meeti Developers including the payment of municipal taxes. With the grace period, it is stated that the redevelopment was to be completed by 2018, which admittedly was not completed. The project thus remained incomplete and cannot be taken forward. The members of the Petitioner have vacated their respective tenements in or about 2015 and for almost 10 years they are waiting for rehabilitation in their permanent alternate premises in the redeveloped premises.

3 In the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioner in an Annual General Body Meeting held on 10^th September 2023 resolved to terminate the Development Agreement dated 20^th December 2010 as entered by the Petitioner with Meeti Developers. Consequent thereto, by a notice of the Petitioner’s Advocate dated 20^th December 2023 addressed to Meeti Developers the said Development Agreement as also the Power of Attorney, which was issued under the said Development Agreement were teminated by the Petitioner. We are informed that the termination of the Development Agreement by the Petitioner’s notice dated 20^th December 2023 is not challenged by the Meeti Developers.

4 In the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioner appointed Respondent No.4 – Bendtech Metals Pvt Ltd. (for short ‘Bendtech’) as the new developers, and has executed a Development Agreement dated 15^th March 2024 with Bendtech, thereby granting redevelopment rights qua the said land on terms and conditions as set out in the said Agreement. According to the Petitioner, Bendtech the new developer is required to now proceed to complete the project. However, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 (for short MCGM) is insisting for a no objection certificate from Meeti Developers to enable the Petitioner to proceed with the development at the hands of Bendtech - the new developer.

5 It is the Petitioner’s case that admittedly th