Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1464
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G. S. Kulkarni, Arif S. Doctor, JJ.
M/s. Atria Constructions - Petitioner
Versus
The Municipal Commis, Pune and ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1022 of 2025, Writ Petition No. 10414 of 2025
Decided On : 21-11-2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Judicial Review
Act Referred
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT : S.37, S.9
WATER PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION ACT : S.25
AIR PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION ACT : S.21
HAZARDOUS AND OTHER WASTES MANAGEMENT AND TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT RULES : R.6
MAHARASHTRA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT : S.267(1)
MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT : S.54
Headnote
(B) Jurisdiction - City Engineer’s jurisdiction questioned as hearing was conducted by unconnected parties - Impugned order based on extraneous considerations and lack of due process. (Paras 55-60)
(C) Environmental Clearance - Dispute regarding Environmental Clearance validity - Construction of 'D' Wing completed within sanctioned parameters and awaiting Occupation Certificate. (Paras 62-66)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners (Atria Constructions) challenged a stop work order issued by the Pune Municipal Corporation following complaints regarding environmental clearances related to a residential project. The petitioners argued that the notice was issued without due process and affected the rights of flat purchasers awaiting occupancy.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the issuance of the stop work notice lacked legal basis, procedural propriety, and adherence to principles of natural justice, leading to its quashing.
Issues: The legitimacy of the stop work notice, jurisdiction of municipal officers, and adherence to procedural due process were central questions addressed by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that orders affecting civil rights must adhere to natural justice; the absence of a detailed show cause notice rendered the stop work order invalid.
Result: The petition was allowed, and the impugned stop work notice was quashed, with costs awarded against the municipal officials.
Key Points: - An order affecting civil rights must comply with principles of natural justice, including a proper show cause notice; failure to do so renders the order invalid [judgement_subject]. - The issuance of a stop work notice lacked legal basis, procedural propriety, and adherence to principles of natural justice, leading to its quashing [judgement_subject]. - The court found that the issuance of the stop work notice lacked legal basis, procedural propriety, and adherence to principles of natural justice, leading to its quashing [judgement_subject]. - The legitimacy of the stop work notice, jurisdiction of municipal officers, and adherence to procedural due process were central questions addressed by the court [judgement_subject]. - The court held that orders affecting civil rights must adhere to natural justice; the absence of a detailed show cause notice rendered the stop work order invalid [judgement_subject]. - The petition was allowed, and the impugned stop work notice was quashed, with costs awarded against the municipal officials [judgement_subject]. - The stop work notice was quashed as arbitrary and illegal due to a breach of principles of natural justice due to the lack of a detailed show cause notice (!) . - The City Engineer’s jurisdiction was questioned as the hearing was conducted by unconnected parties, and the impugned order was based on extraneous considerations and lack of due process (!) . - The court found that the issuance of the stop work notice lacked legal basis, procedural propriety, and adherence to principles of natural justice, leading to its quashing (!) . - The court held that orders affecting civil rights must adhere to natural justice; the absence of a detailed show cause notice rendered the stop work order invalid (!) . - The petition was allowed, and the impugned stop work notice was quashed, with costs awarded against the municipal officials (!) . - The issuance of a stop work notice without a proper show cause notice violates the principles of natural justice and renders the order invalid (!) . - A person who hears must decide, and divided responsibility is destructive of the concept of hearing (!) . - The impugned stop work notice was quashed as arbitrary and illegal due to a breach of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a detailed show cause notice (!) . - The court found that the issuance of the stop work notice lacked legal basis, procedural propriety, and adherence to principles of natural justice, leading to its quashing (!) . - The petition was allowed, and the impugned stop work notice was quashed, with costs awarded against the municipal officials (!) .
What is the consequence of issuing an order affecting civil rights without complying with the principles of natural justice, specifically a proper show cause notice?
What is the jurisdiction of a City Engineer when a hearing is conducted by unconnected parties and the order is based on extraneous considerations?
What are the procedural requirements for issuing a stop work notice under Section 267(1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act?
For the Petitioner:Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Vijay Upadhyay and Mr. Sitesh Sharma
For the Respondent:Mr. Vishwanath Patil, Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Shrey Fatterpekar, Ms. Nidhi, Mr. Vishal Tiwari, Mr. Himanshu Singh i/b. White and Brief Advocates and Solicitors Ms. Savita A. Prabhune, AGP
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute regarding occupancy certificates and stop work notice. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. issues related to environmental clearances and permissions. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 3. arguments presented by the petitioner regarding the legality of the stop work notice. (Para 33 , 35 , 36 , 38) |
| 4. court's analysis of procedural and substantive irregularities. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 5. conclusion and directive for issuance of occupancy certificate. (Para 76 , 79 , 80) |
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Kulkarni. J.
1. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties heard finally.
2. These are two proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Writ Petition No. 1022 of 2025 is filed by M/s. Atria Constructions assailing a Stop Work Notice dated 10 December 2024 issued to such petitioner by respondent nos.3 and 4, namely the Junior Engineer and the Deputy Engineer of Building Development Department of the Pune Municipal Corporation-respondent no.1 (for short, “the Municipal Corporation”).
4. Writ Petition No.10414 of 2025 is filed by 49 petitioners who have purchased flats in the building in question constructed by M/s. Atria Constructions, who contend that they are being deprived of the flats purchased by them in view of the municipal corporation halting grant of Occupation Certificate by issuance of the impugned stop work notice.
5. For convenience, we refer to the facts on record of the first writ petition filed by M/s. Atria Constructions, who is referred as “the petitioner”, and the petitioners in the companion petition would be referred as “the flat purchasers”.
Facts:-
6. This is a peculiar case as the facts would unfold. The dispute pertains to a building project described as ‘Rajgruhi Residency’ comprising construction of four wings which include four podiums plus amenities plus 20 floors, being the construction of each of the wings.
7. At the outset, we may observe that as the facts unfold, the entire controversy underlies a dispute between respondent no.5-Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd./the owner of the land (for short, “Wellbuild”) who was also the developer of the ‘A’ and ‘B’ wings, which work was in fact contracted to the petitioner. Further the petitioner under an agreement dated 18 August 2021 entered into with Wellbuild, is undertaking construction of wings ‘C’ and ‘D’. It is also not in dispute that the construction of Wings ‘A’ and ‘B’ was completed long back. Also, an Occupancy Certificate was granted, consequent to which the flat purchasers are in occupation of their respective tenements, who have also formed a cooperative society.
8. Insofar as Wings ‘C’ and ‘D’ are concerned, the construction of which is undertaken by the petitioner, the construction of Wing ‘D’ stands fully completed and is awaiting an Occupancy Certificate, which has already been applied by the petitioner. Also large number of flats in Wing-D are already sold by the petitioner, and such flat purchasers are awaiting occupancy of their respective flats. The construction of Wing-C has reached upto 4 floors.
9. It is at this stage, a very peculiar dispute has arisen, which appears to be wholly between Wellbuild and the petitioner. The flat purchasers of Wing-D are sandwiched between these disputing parties. It also appears that the municipal machinery is being used to settle these private disputes.
10. The following discussion on the facts would shed light on such factual conspectus:-
11. On 25 October 2019, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the petitioner and Wellbuild, whereby the petitioner invested a sum of Rs. 40 Crores to ensure completion of the project.
12. On 18 August 2021 and 26 August 2021, Articles of Agreement/ Development Agreement along with a Power of Attorney were executed and registered between the petitioner and Wellbuild, whereunder the petitioner was appointed as the “developer” by Wellbuild to complete the project which is primarily the Wings ‘C’ and ‘D’ of the said project.
13
