Municipal Machinery Cannot Be Used To Settle Private Disputes: Bombay High Court Quashes Stop-Work Notice, Imposes ₹30 Lakh Costs On PMC Officials And Developer
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Bombay Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Arif S. Doctor set aside the stop-work notice issued to the developer and directed the Pune Municipal Corporation to act strictly as per law rather than impede the completed and ongoing construction. The Court held that municipal authorities cannot be used to further private contractual disputes and noted that officials had issued the stop-work notice without legal foundation, relying solely on unverified complaints from unidentified persons instead of conducting proper inquiry. The dispute involved allegations concerning environmental permissions, drainage realignment, and construction compliance, affecting both the developer and flat purchasers. The Court found the notice arbitrary and issued in disregard of statutory procedure.
The matter concerns a construction project known as Rajgruhi Residency, comprising four wings. The landowner and original developer had earlier engaged the petitioner to complete construction of Wings C and D, while Wings A and B were already completed and occupied. Construction of Wing D was finished, and Wing C had progressed up to the fourth floor. Disputes subsequently arose between the petitioner and the landowner over their contractual arrangements, leading both parties to initiate proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Flat purchasers of Wing D also approached the Court, stating that the municipal action had prevented issuance of the occupation certificate.
During this time, the municipal corporation sent the petitioner a WhatsApp message calling for a hearing. Prior to the hearing, complaints had been received from various individuals alleging issues relating to environmental permissions, shifting of a stormwater drain, and deviations from the environmental clearance. Several persons unconnected with the petitioner were present at the hearing. The petitioner submitted written responses and documents, including materials showing that the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board had recommended revalidation of the Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate, as well as an architect’s certification disputing allegations of excess construction.
The next day, municipal officials issued a stop-work notice citing absence of valid consents, non-completion of the drain realignment, and discrepancies between the sanctioned environmental clearance and the construction on site, relying on statutory provisions under municipal and planning laws.
The Court observed that the municipal authorities issued the stop-work notice without following the fundamental requirements of natural justice. It recorded that the petitioner was not given any meaningful opportunity to understand or respond to the allegations, stating that “no copies of any complaints received by the Executive Engineer… were supplied to the petitioner, on the basis of which such drastic order was passed to stop work of the entire project.” The Court found that the action was taken without proper inquiry, noting that the authorities acted despite the absence of any verification of records or factual assessment.
An observation was that the stop-work notice was issued without a proper show-cause process. The Court stated that “such illegality in passing the impugned stop work notice… appears to have been committed in the absence of the petitioner being put to a clear notice of the issues.” It also recorded that the hearing was procedurally defective because “the hearing held on 9 December 2024… was held not by the Executive Engineer who issued the notice… but by the City Engineer and the Deputy Engineer, who immediately on the next day… issued the impugned stop work notice.”
The Court observed that unrelated individuals were allowed to participate, noting that “such hearing being attended by totally unconnected persons, itself raises a serious doubt on the fairness of the officials of the municipal corporation in the proceedings.” The Court found that the manner in which the hearing was conducted reflected a compromised and irregular process.
The Court recorded that the municipal machinery had been used to advance private disputes after Wellbuild failed to obtain orders in arbitration-related proceedings, observing that “we also cannot overlook the timing at which the impugned stop work notice is issued… when the proceedings filed by Wellbuild against the petitioner… could not succeed.” It added that “…what could not be achieved directly by Wellbuild in a manner known to law, i.e. in the legal proceedings, Wellbuild has sought to achieve the same, by utilising the municipal machinery.”
The Court further stated that the conduct of officials and private individuals showed clear misuse of authority, noting that “the official machinery of the respondents was totally misused by Wellbuild along with such persons.” It also recorded the consequential harm, stating that “such conduct… has also deprived the legitimate flat purchasers of early occupation of their flats.”
The Court directed that the writ petition by the developer “is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (b)”, which sought a writ of mandamus declaring “that the issuance of the Impugned Stop Work Notice dated 10th December 2024… under section 267(1) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 r/w. Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act,1966 is perverse, illegal, improper, invalid, arbitrary, malafide and the same deserves to be set aside.”
“The concerned officials including the City Engineer who are directly involved in passing the impugned order/stop work notice shall, jointly and severally, pay cost of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the petitioner,” to be paid within two weeks, failing which “the Municipal Commissioner shall recover the same in accordance with law.”
“Respondent No.5-Wellbuild shall pay cost of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five lakhs only) to the petitioner within two weeks from today. Respondent Nos.01 to 04 are directed to issue Completion/Occupancy Certificate in respect of said Tower viz. Rajgruhi Residency Tower ‘D’ on the application/proposal in that regard made by M/s. Atria Constructions in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, request for stay is rejected.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Vijay Upadhyay and Mr. Sitesh Sharma, Mr. Pritesh Burad a/w. Ms. Samita Vaviya, Ms. Kiran Yadav i/b. Pritesh Burad Associates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwanath Patil, Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Shrey Fatterpekar, Ms. Nidhi, Mr. Vishal Tiwari, Mr. Himanshu Singh i/b. White and Brief Advocates, Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Akshay Deshmukh, Mr. Sumit Chaudhary, Mr. Sanket Kadam, Ms. Savita A. Prabhune, AGP for the State.
Case Title: M/s. Atria Constructions v. The Municipal Commissioner, Pune & Ors.; Pooja B. Jain & Ors. v. Pune Municipal Commissioner & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:50416-DB.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1022 of 2025 with Writ Petition No. 10414 of 2025.
Bench: Justice G. S. Kulkarni, Justice Arif S. Doctor
