MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has ruled that a no objection certificate (NOC) for construction near defense installations cannot be insisted upon after the fact. The court ordered relevant authorities to issue an occupancy certificate for two residential buildings near INS Trata.
The bench, comprising Justices G S Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, noted in a ruling on May 5 that requirements for an NOC from defense authorities should be applied in a fair and reasonable manner as per legal standards.
The court mentioned that if claims regarding security concerns from the defense were valid, proactive measures should have been taken at the onset of construction activities near military sites.
“There must not be a casual approach, especially when significant construction has already been underway with the sanctioned plans and permissions,” the High Court emphasized.
According to Article 300A of the Constitution, the right to property is guaranteed and cannot be infringed upon in ways that are not legally recognized.
The court accepted a petition from Techno Freshworld LLP, the developers of the Prabhadevi Indraprastha Cooperative Housing Society in Worli, Mumbai. They were contesting an October 2025 stop-work notice due to the absence of a mandatory NOC from naval authorities.
The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) had stated that an NOC was necessary because of the buildings’ proximity to INS Trata, a naval facility in central Mumbai. The petition also contested MHADA’s refusal to grant an occupancy certificate (OC).
The bench deemed the insistence on an NOC by the naval authorities as “illegal, invalid, and unjustified.” MHADA’s issuance of a commencement certificate (CC) to the developers allowed for continued construction, which the HC found to be legal and valid.
Furthermore, the court ruled that the petitioner’s buildings were beyond stipulated regulations, and thus did not require an NOC.
The court stated that the October 2025 stop-work notice, along with the rejection of their OC application due to lack of an NOC from naval authorities, were “arbitrary and illegal.” The petitioner highlighted that one of the buildings was completed and the other was nearing completion.
The court noted that MHADA had periodically issued commencement certificates and permissions for the construction of both buildings.
In its judgment, the court encouraged defense authorities, along with planning agencies, to take a realistic and legally grounded approach to genuinely objectionable situations in law.
The court remarked that numerous buildings, including some constructed without an NOC, already exist near INS Trata, stating that the requirement of an NOC cannot be enforced selectively by naval authorities.
