Bombay High Court Rejects Defence NOC Requirement for Nearby Construction Projects

The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant ruling that authorities cannot belatedly insist on no-objection certificates (NOCs) from defence establishments for construction projects that have already progressed substantially in accordance with sanctioned plans and approvals granted by planning authorities.

The ruling was delivered earlier this week by a bench comprising Justices G S Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe while hearing a petition filed by Techno Freshworld LLP, the developer of the Prabhadevi Indraprastha Cooperative Housing Society project at Worli in central Mumbai.

The dispute centered around two residential buildings located near INS Trata, a naval establishment. According to the case records, the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) had issued stop-work notices in October 2025, citing the developer's failure to obtain a mandatory NOC from naval authorities. MHADA had also refused to grant an occupancy certificate for the buildings.

The court observed that the insistence on defence-related NOCs must follow a fair, reasonable, and legally sustainable approach. The bench stated that if security concerns genuinely existed, the required objections and legal processes should have been initiated at the beginning of the construction activity rather than after substantial progress had already been made.

The judges further noted that there could not be a casual approach in matters involving security concerns, particularly when planning authorities themselves had repeatedly issued commencement certificates permitting the continuation of construction works over a period of time.

Referring to Article 300A of the Constitution, the court observed that the right to property could not be infringed in a manner not recognized by law. It held that the naval authorities' insistence on an NOC in the present case was illegal, invalid, and unjustified.

The bench also ruled that MHADA's earlier decisions granting commencement certificates to the developer were lawful and valid. According to the judgment, the residential buildings were located beyond the prescribed restricted norms and therefore did not require a defence NOC.

The court declared the stop-work notices and refusal to issue occupancy certificates as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner informed the court that one of the buildings intended for the rehabilitation of 72 original tenants had already been completed, while the second structure was nearing completion.

The bench additionally observed that several other buildings already existed in the vicinity of INS Trata without such NOCs and stated that defence authorities could not selectively impose the requirement on specific projects.

This ruling is expected to have significant implications for redevelopment and real estate projects located near defence establishments, particularly in densely populated areas like Mumbai. It sets a precedent that authorities must adhere to a transparent and consistent approach in dealing with construction projects near sensitive areas.