In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has strongly reprimanded officials of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) for overstepping their authority and jurisdiction. The court took exception to their actions of misinterpreting a remark made by the Chief Minister as an order to stay the redevelopment of two housing societies in Pune's Sadashiv Peth area.
Court's Decisive Order on NOC and Proposals
A bench comprising Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe, in its order dated December 23, declared that the No-Objection Certificate (NOC) granted to Sunglory housing cooperative on April 9 is valid and legal. The society can now proceed with its redevelopment plan without any hindrance. For the Nutan housing cooperative, the bench directed MHADA to take a decision on its pending redevelopment proposal on or before January 15, 2026.
Sequence of Events: From MLA's Letter to MHADA's 'Stay'
The controversy began when BJP's Kasba Peth MLA, Hemant Rasne, wrote to the Chief Minister on May 14. In his letter, he pitched for a cluster development project for old MHADA buildings in Lokmanyanagar and identified the independent redevelopment of Sunglory and Nutan cooperatives as a hurdle. The CM noted "Grant stay until further orders" on this letter and forwarded it to the Vice President of MHADA.
The Vice President did not record any specific instruction. However, MHADA's officiating architect and planner, Maheshkumar Bankar, wrote to the chief officer on June 24 implying a stay had been ordered. Following this, the chief officer wrote to the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) citing the "stay" on the NOC for Sunglory, and a similar communication was sent to the Nutan housing cooperative. This prompted both societies to challenge these letters in the High Court.
HC Criticizes "Extra-Legal Interference" and Official Apathy
The bench expressed strong disapproval of the actions of the MHADA officials. It noted that the officials, particularly the Chief Officer and the In-charge Architect, acted without verifying the correct legal position from higher authorities like the Vice President. The court stated that the CM's remark was addressed specifically to the Vice President, who had taken no clear stand, and thus subordinate officials had no authority to issue letters implying a stay.
The judges remarked, "We have, therefore, no hesitation to deprecate such actions of these public officials when with impunity they had forgotten the statutory purport in exceeding their authority and jurisdiction."
Furthermore, the court agreed with the petitioners' lawyers, SM Gorwadkar, Ganesh Dabak, and Ritwik Joshi, that there was an "extra-legal interference by the local MLA." The bench observed that the MLA's approach to pressurize MHADA officials by approaching the Chief Minister was not correct in law, especially when the societies were pursuing independent redevelopment as per the MHADA Act.
This ruling brings clarity and relief to the housing societies involved and underscores the importance of administrative officials adhering to their statutory limits and due process.
