Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6148
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
G. S. Kulkarni, ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ
M/s. Atria Constructions – Appellant
Versus
(1) The Municipal Commis, Pune (2) The City Engineer, PMC Building, Pune (3) The Junior Engineer, Bldg. Development Dept., Pune (4) The Deputy Engineer, Bldg, Development Dept., Pune (5) Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd. through its Director (6) The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 1022 OF 2025 | WRIT PETITION NO. 10414 OF 2025
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Environmental Regulations
Act Referred
Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act: S.21(4)
Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act: S.267(1)
Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act: S.54
Arbitration and Conciliation Act: S.9, S.37
Headnote
(B) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearances - Need for renewed Clearances when altering scope of construction and adherence to original signed agreements for projects. (Paras 46, 61)
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr. Vijay Upadhyay, Mr. Sitesh Sharma
For the Respondents:Mr. Vishwanath Patil, Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr. Shrey Fatterpekar, Ms. Nidhi, Mr. Vishal Tiwari, Mr. Himanshu Singh, Mr. Pritesh Burad, Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Ms. Savita A. Prabhune, AGP for the State
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of case proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. filing of writ petitions by parties. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. background of construction works at rajgruhi residency. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. development agreements and completion progress. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. controversy arising from the agreements. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. judicial proceedings concerning the controversies. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. issues regarding stop work notice. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. petitioner's response to stop work notice. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 9. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 33 , 36 , 38) |
| 10. court's analysis of the situation. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 11. observations on notice procedures. (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 12. critique of municipal corporation's actions. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 13. determination of legality under administrative law. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 14. analysis of jurisdiction and authority of personnel. (Para 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 15. decisions and conclusions reached by the court. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73) |
| 16. final ruling and orders of the court. (Para 76 , 78 , 80) |
Judgment
(Per 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 set
