Court holds that insistence on Defence No Objection Certificate (NOC) at final stage, after multiple permissions granted and substantial construction completed, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; clarifies that Ministry of Defence circulars requiring NOC beyond 50 meters radius are no longer applicable.
In a landmark judgment dated May 5, 2026, the Bombay High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe) quashed a stop work notice issued by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) against Techno Freshworld LLP, a developer undertaking redevelopment of a dilapidated building at Worli, Mumbai. The notice was premised on the alleged absence of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Naval Authorities (INS Trata), which the Court found to be arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The dispute centered around redevelopment of Building No. 41 in the Adarsh Nagar MHADA layout, where 72 families were to be rehabilitated. Techno Freshworld LLP, appointed developer, had obtained multiple development permissions and commencement certificates from MHADA between 2022 and 2025, under the regulatory framework of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act and Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034. The redevelopment project was substantially complete, with the rehabilitation building finished and the sale building nearing completion.
Notably, throughout this period, MHADA did not insist upon or condition approvals on obtaining a Defence NOC, especially after the Ministry of Defence (MoD) issued a circular on December 23, 2022, limiting NOC requirements to constructions within 50 meters of specified Defence establishments, including INS Trata. This circular superseded earlier circulars from 2011, 2015, and 2016, which had imposed a 500-meter radius for NOC requirements.
However, in February 2023, the MoD kept the December 2022 circular in abeyance. The petitioner argued that this did not revive the earlier circulars and that the petitioner’s rights crystallized when permissions were granted under the December 2022 circular regime. MHADA granted further commencement certificates without demanding any Defence NOC.
Surprisingly, in July 2025, MHADA issued a stop work notice and rejected the petitioner’s application for an Occupation Certificate citing absence of a Naval NOC, based on a letter from the Naval authorities that the site was within 500 meters of a Defence establishment. The petitioner challenged these actions before the High Court.
The Court’s analysis revealed critical facts:
- The site is located approximately 280 meters from INS Trata Site II, but under the December 2022 circular, NOC was required only within 50 meters radius.
- The December 2022 circular had superseded the 2011 and subsequent circulars, and keeping it in abeyance did not revive the earlier circulars.
- MHADA had issued multiple commencement certificates and approvals during the period when the December 2022 circular was in force or abeyance, without requiring Defence NOC.
- The petitioner had changed its position in reliance on these permissions, completing major construction.
- The Defence NOC requirement under Regulation 59 of DCPR 2034 must be read conjunctively, requiring notification by the Urban Development Department, which was absent.
- The Ministry of Defence circulars relied upon by the Navy are executive instructions lacking statutory force and cannot override State planning laws or constitutional property rights under Article 300A.
- The stop work notice issued at the final stage, after construction was substantially complete, without prior objection or timely enforcement, was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 (right to equality).
The Court held that the petitioner’s fundamental right to property had been infringed in an arbitrary manner. It directed MHADA to grant the Occupation Certificate and quashed the stop work notice. The Court referred to earlier judgments including Dolby Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. MCGM and Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, which invalidated similar Defence circulars and emphasized that restrictions on property rights must be imposed by law, not executive fiat.
Rejecting the Navy’s plea for stay, the Court recognized the hardship faced by the 72 families awaiting rehabilitation and flat purchasers.
The judgment underscores the need for Defence authorities and planning bodies to adopt a consistent, lawful approach regarding NOC requirements, respecting crystallized rights and statutory procedures, and not to impose last-minute restrictions after substantial investment and construction.
Bottom Line:
A stop work notice issued by the planning authority based on the absence of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from a Defence Authority was held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, particularly when no such NOC was insisted upon during the earlier stages of construction and the project was already substantially completed.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 14, Article 300A of the Constitution of India; Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR), 2034, Regulation 59 and Appendix III; Works of Defence Act, 1903.
