Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 892

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G. S. KULKARNI, AARTI SATHE, JJ.
Techno Freshworld LLP, A Limited Liability Partnership - Petitioner
Vs
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority - Respondent
Writ petition (l.) No. 36387 of 2025 With Interim Application (L.) No. 2186 of 2026
Decided On : 05-05-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohan Kadam, Mr. Sanjay Udeshi, Mr. Aditya Udeshi and Mr. Rahul Sanghavi i/b. M/s. Sanjay Udeshi
For the Respondent:Mr. P. G. Lad with Ms. Sayali Apte, Mr. Murlidharan Kalathil, Mr. Rajshekar Govilkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Krishnakant Deshmukh and Ms. Shaba Khan, Mr. Rohaan Cama with Mr. Shishir Joshi and Ms. Priti Shukla i/b. Ms. Priti Joshi, Cdr. Himanshu Sharma, INS Trata, Cdr. Archit Thorat, HQWNC and Cdr., Aditya Deep Singh, HQWNC Officers are present in Court.

Abeyance of superseding defence circular does not revive prior ones; construction rights crystallize under interim regime permissions; NOC not mandatory beyond 50m without statutory backing or state notification; arbitrary selective enforcement violative of equality.

Headnote:(A) Ministry of Defence circulars dated 18 May 2011, modifications 2015, superseded by 23 December 2022 circular reducing NOC radius to 50m for listed establishments in Annexure A - Abeyance of 2022 circular vide 23 February 2023 does not revive extinguished prior circulars - Rights to construct crystallize upon permissions granted during 2022 circular regime - No operative executive guideline mandates NOC beyond 50m absent statutory restrictions under Works of Defence Act 1903. (Paras 87-98)

(B) Development Control Regulations 2034 - Reg 59 Appendix III Sr.5 - Special purpose NOC from defence required conjunctively where mandated by defence authority around installation AND notified by Urban Development Department - Not unilateral; planning authority may approve on undertaking. (Paras 106-112)

(C) Article 14 - Arbitrary pick and choose enforcement permitting nearby high-rises without NOC while objecting selectively - Uniform application of distance norms mandatory; no post-facto stop work after substantial completion. (Paras 99, 116-117)

Facts of the case:
Redevelopment of dilapidated workers' tenements under Reg 33(5) DCPR 2034 on leased plot; developer obtained intimation of approval, multiple phased commencement certificates from planning authority without defence NOC condition; rehab building completed, sale building substantially complete (31/34 floors); 72 society members in transit; post-completion insistence on defence NOC leads to stop work notice and occupation certificate denial.

Findings of Court:
Impugned stop work notice and occupation certificate rejection quashed; planning authority directed to grant occupation certificate for rehab building and process further permissions without defence NOC.

Issues: (i) Legality of defence NOC insistence; (ii) Validity of planning authority's commencement certificates; (iii) Legality of stop work notice and occupation certificate denial. (Para 60)

Ratio Decidendi: Superseded circulars obliterated by later supersession; abeyance creates no vacuum reviving priors nor affects crystallized rights from permissions under interim regime; executive circulars lack force to curtail property rights without legislation occupying field; Reg 59 conjunctive, no state notification; selective enforcement arbitrary, especially post-substantial construction.

Result: Writ petition allowed in terms of prayers (a) and (b); rule absolute.

Table of Content
1. land history, society formation, redevelopment permissions granted (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. phased ccs issued without defence noc requirement (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. delays resolved, further approvals; stop work issued late (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. navy mandates noc under circulars, dcpr for 500m (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
5. circulars superseded; arbitrary pick-and-choose violates article 14 (Para 40 , 56 , 57 , 58)
6. navy defends security, uniform application, circular revival (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
7. undisputed facts confirm mhada approvals sans noc (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75)
8. mod circulars evolution reduces noc radius to 50m (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91)
9. abeyance does not revive superseded circulars; rights crystallized (Para 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97)
10. navy selective enforcement arbitrary, violates article 14 (Para 98 , 99 , 100 , 101)
11. precedents quash circulars absent works of defence compliance (Para 102 , 103 , 104 , 105)
12. dcpr 59 noc requires defence and state notification conjunctively (Para 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 , 112)
13. no statutory basis for mandatory noc; arbitrary insistence (Para 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118)
14. quash stop work; direct occupation certificate issuance (Para 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123)

JUDGMENT :

(Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.)

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India again brings to the fore and resurrects the issue on a mandatory ‘NOC’ to be obtained from the Naval Authorities (INS Trata, Worli), in the present case in regard to construction of two buildings. The first building is a completed construction which would rehabilitate 72 members of respondent No.4-society. The second building is at the final stage of completion which is a sale building. The action impugned in the present petition is of respondent No.1-Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) issuing a stop work notice as also denying Occupation Certificate for want of NOC from the defence / Navy in undertaking such construction. Such issue has not reached the Court for the first time, considering the decisions of this Court and view taken by this Court in a series of judgments, not accepting the stand of the respondent-Navy, as also, the Supreme Court confirming the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 3145 of 2021 decided on 23 October, 2023 by rejecting the Special Leave Petition.

2. This writ petition impugns the action of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in issuing the stop work notice dated 24 October 2025 (received by the Petitioner on 28 October 2025), whereby, despite having granted development permissions from time to time by the Planning Authority, such as MHADA, the petitioner has been ordered to halt construction for want of submission of a Naval NOC from respondent No.3, purportedly as a pre-condition for the construction.

3. The facts relevant to the adjudication of the present proceedings are: The Petitioner is a Limited Liability Partnership incorporated under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and Respondent No.4 is a co-operative housing society registered under the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 and is the lessee of the plot bearing C.S. No. 209 (Part) of Worli Division admeasuring 1601.25 sq. mtrs., which has been redeveloped by the Petitioner.

4. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (for short “the BMC”) is the owner of a larger piece of land bearing C.S. No. 209 of Worli Division situated at the junction of Balaji Temkar Marg and New Prabhadevi Road, Worli, Mumbai 400030. The Maharashtr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document