HC quashes Mhada’s stop-work notice to Worli project near INS Trata

Mhada had refused to issue an occupancy certificate (OC) for the building for want of a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the Indian Navy

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday struck down a notice issued by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada) to stop work at a redevelopment project near INS Trata, an Indian Navy establishment in Worli, and its refusal to issue an occupancy certificate (OC) for the building for want of a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the Indian Navy.

iiMumbai, India - May 06, 2026: A view of the under constriction Prabhadevi Indraprastha Co-Op Housing Society in Mumbai, India, on Wednesday, May 06, 2026. (Photo by Satish Bate/ Hindustan Times) (Hindustan Times)

A division bench of justices GS Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe held that the insistence on an NOC from the commanding officer of INS Trata was “a clear harassment to the petitioner for no rhyme or reason,” especially when at least 25 high-rise buildings have come up in close proximity to the naval establishment, including several without NOCs. The redeveloped building is intended to rehabilitate 72 members of the Prabhadevi Indraprastha Cooperative Housing Society (CHS).

The court was hearing a petition filed by developer Techno Freshworld LLP last year, challenging a notice issued by Mhada on October 24, 2025, asking the firm to stop work at its site. After being appointed by Prabhadevi Indraprastha CHS for the redevelopment, the firm submitted plans for the construction of two buildings—one for the rehabilitation of 72 members and another for sale in the open market.

Techno Freshworld then applied for further CCs and also had to undertake a round of litigation before the high court, but at no point did Mhada insist on a naval NOC, the petition said. However, on July 14, 2025, the housing authority allegedly informed the firm that the naval authorities had instructed them to stop work at the site.

In its response to Mhada, Techno Freshworld stated that a December 2022 circular issued by the defence ministry required only the constructions within 50 metres of defence establishments to obtain prior NOCs. Since the plot in question was located 528 metres away from INS Trata, an NOC from the naval authorities was not required, it said.

According to the petition, Mhada officials accepted the developer’s stand and, in August 2025, issued CCs even for the sale component building without insisting on any naval NOC. The firm then completed the construction of the rehabilitation building and applied for an OC.

However, on October 28, 2025, Mhada allegedly issued a stop-work notice to the firm and rejected its plea for an OC, prompting it to approach the high court. Senior advocate Ravi Kadam and advocates Sanjay Udeshi and Aditya Udeshi, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the stop-work notice was issued when the rehab building was already complete, and the sale component building was nearing completion. They added that the firm had already spent nearly ₹200 crore on the construction and paid ₹40 crore to Mhada as premium and other charges.

The naval authorities contested the petition, contending that the project site was located 280 metres from INS Trata and not 528 metres, as claimed by the firm; therefore, the promoter needed to obtain an NOC from the naval authorities before starting the project, they added. The Navy also argued that the NOC requirement arises solely from the standpoint of national security assessment.

However, the high court held that the December 2022 defence ministry circular was applicable in the case, requiring an NOC for projects within 50 metres of INS Trata. Therefore, an NOC from the naval establishment was not required for the redevelopment project, it said. The insistence of NOC was “per se arbitrary [and] illegal, apart from causing a very serious prejudice to the petitioner,” it added.

The court further said that the process of issuing NOCs for construction near defence establishments requires an appropriate, non-arbitrary, fair and reasonable approach. If the argument regarding security concerns and threat perception had any basis, there could not be a casual approach to such matters, it added.

“The constitution under Article 300A guarantees the right to property,” the judges said. “Such right cannot be infringed or prejudiced in a manner not recognised by law. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the defence authorities, in consultation with the planning authorities, to adopt a realistic and legally sustainable approach to situations which are realistically objectionable in law,” they added.