PUNE: The Bombay High Court (HC) has criticized MHADA officials for “overstepping their authority” by misinterpreting the Chief Minister’s (CM) comment regarding a letter from BJP’s Kasba Peth MLA Hemant Rasne. The officials construed it as a stay on the redevelopment of the Sunglory housing cooperative and a proposal for the Nutan housing cooperative in Sadashiv Peth.
The bench, comprised of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe, noted on December 23 the “extra-legal interference” by MLA Rasne, aimed at “pressuring MHADA officials” regarding this matter.
The Court ruled that MHADA’s no-objection certificate (NOC) for the Sunglory housing cooperative, issued on April 9, remains valid, allowing it to proceed with its redevelopment plans. The bench instructed MHADA to address the pending proposal from the Nutan housing cooperative no later than January 15, 2026.
Previously, MHADA officials had communicated a “stay” despite having issued an NOC for Sunglory and while Nutan’s proposal was still under consideration. On May 14, Rasne appealed to the CM for a cluster development project concerning old MHADA buildings in Lokmanyanagar, claiming the redevelopment of Sunglory and Nutan cooperatives obstructed this project. The CM remarked, “Grant stay until further orders,” forwarding it to MHADA’s vice president, who did not clarify the matter further. Nonetheless, MHADA’s officiating architect mentioned a stay had been ordered, which was communicated to the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) and the Nutan housing cooperative. Both societies subsequently challenged these letters in the HC.
In its observations, the bench emphasized, “We would fail in our duties if we do not address the issue of MHADA officials, notably the Chief Officer, engaging with the PMC and others without verifying the correct legal position from the vice president prior to taking action based on the CM’s remarks.”
The bench clarified that the CM’s comment was directed to the MHADA vice president and not lower-level officials who acted without a clear mandate. Hence, the letters issuing the stay were unjustifiable. “We must deprecate the actions of these officials who, without due diligence, exceeded their authority after already issuing an NOC to Sunglory CHS, and while Nutan’s proposal remained pending,” the bench stated.
Extra-legal interference
Concerning Rasne’s letter to the CM, the bench supported the petitioners’ lawyer (SM Gorwadkar, with assistance from Ganesh Dabak and Ritwik Joshi), noting that “the extra-legal interference by the local MLA regarding the redevelopment was inappropriate, lacking any legitimate grounds recognized by law for such intervention in the independent redevelopment of both petitioner societies.”
Gorwadkar argued that such interference, particularly directed at the CM to exert pressure on MHADA officials, lacks legal foundation and contravenes established provisions of the MHADA Act. The bench concurred with this assessment.
