Mumbai: Bombay HC rapped the chief officer (CO) of Mhada’s Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board for cancelling an NOC given for redevelopment of a Tardeo building following a representation. Ten of the proposed sixteen floors of the building have been raised.“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,” said Justices Girish Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe on Feb 17. Developer Kumar Agro Products Pvt Ltd challenged CO Milind Shambarkar’s Oct 13, 2025, order that cancelled the Sept 2019 NOC granted to two owners, Samir and Vaibhav Thakre, and directed the developer to cease all redevelopment work. The NOC was cancelled following a representation received from the advocates of Geetadevi Jadhav on June 18, 2025, who asserted 4/5th share in the property. The developer’s petition said under a Dec 1968 partition deed, the owners’ exclusive ownership rights stood crystallised in 2025.Senior advocate Vineet Naik, for the developer, said Jadhav made attempts to interfere with the construction by not filing a civil suit to assert her rights. She first approached BMC and a stop-work order was issued, which was stayed by HC. She simultaneously approached the CO. Naik said the CO’s order is patently illegal as the CO cannot wield authority to grant a declaration in respect of the legal rights of the parties and only the civil court can grant such a declaration. When Naik said it is a “recent trend” that parties do not take recourse to legal proceedings and approach such authorities, the judges agreed with him. The bench noted that the NOC was granted “far back” on Sept 20, 2019, and things proceeded under it, with construction reaching the 10th floor. “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”, he could have appropriately exercised powers vested in him and “not such powers which a civil court can exercise...” Such an order “has set at naught” the valuable rights of the owners and the developer guaranteed under Articles 300A (property) and 14 (equality), it said. The judges said “there is wiseness (sic) which prevailed” after Mhada’s advocate, P G Lad, said the order shall be withdrawn and not be acted upon. Accordingly, they quashed and set aside the order as being withdrawn. They refrained from taking action like in a similar case where officers were directed to pay Rs 5 lakh fine. If such instances are repeated, there would be no option “for the court but to take a serious view of the matter qua the officials concerned”, the judges said.
