Bombay High Court Rebukes Mhada Officer for Arbitrary NOC Cancellation
The Bombay High Court has strongly criticized the chief officer of Mhada's Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board for improperly cancelling a No Objection Certificate (NOC) that had been granted for the redevelopment of a building in Tardeo. The court expressed serious concern about public officials misusing their authority in matters involving substantial investments.
Court Observations on Authority Misuse
Justices Girish Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, in their February 17 ruling, noted a disturbing trend where individuals increasingly approach public officials with significant powers rather than pursuing proper legal channels. "We find that there is an increasing tendency of persons to approach public officials who are vested with high powers, which can be exercised in respect of constructions and projects being undertaken which involve substantial investments and resources," the bench observed.
The case involved developer Kumar Agro Products Pvt Ltd challenging chief officer Milind Shambarkar's October 13, 2025 order that cancelled a September 2019 NOC granted to property owners Samir and Vaibhav Thakre. The cancellation came after a representation from Geetadevi Jadhav's advocates on June 18, 2025, who claimed a four-fifths share in the property.
Legal Arguments and Construction Status
Senior advocate Vineet Naik, representing the developer, argued that Jadhav had attempted to interfere with construction without filing a proper civil suit to assert her rights. He noted that she first approached the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, which issued a stop-work order that was subsequently stayed by the High Court. Simultaneously, she approached the Mhada chief officer.
Naik contended that the chief officer's order was patently illegal because the officer lacked authority to make declarations about legal rights between parties—a power reserved exclusively for civil courts. The judges agreed with Naik's argument that this represented a "recent trend" where parties bypass proper legal proceedings to approach administrative authorities.
The court noted that construction had progressed significantly under the original NOC, with ten of the proposed sixteen floors already completed. "In such circumstances, it was an onerous duty of the officer concerned, before passing such drastic orders, to examine all issues and after obtaining legal opinion," the bench stated, adding that the officer should have exercised appropriate powers rather than those reserved for civil courts.
Constitutional Rights and Court Decision
The judges emphasized that the cancellation order had effectively nullified the valuable property rights of both the owners and developer, rights guaranteed under Articles 300A (right to property) and 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution. The bench stated that such actions "has set at naught" these fundamental protections.
The court's decision came after Mhada's advocate, P G Lad, informed the bench that the cancellation order would be withdrawn and not acted upon. Accordingly, the High Court quashed and set aside the order as being withdrawn.
Warning Against Future Violations
While refraining from imposing penalties similar to another case where officers were directed to pay a Rs 5 lakh fine, the judges issued a stern warning. They cautioned that if such instances of authority misuse are repeated, the court would have no option but to take serious action against the officials concerned.
The developer's petition had clarified that under a December 1968 partition deed, the owners' exclusive ownership rights were firmly established by 2025. This legal clarity further underscored the inappropriate nature of the NOC cancellation based on a third-party representation without proper judicial determination of property rights.
