Bombay High Court
Local Military Authority Alias The ... vs The Municipal Commissioner ... on 20 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Digitally
signed by
GAURI AMIT
GAURI GAEKWAD
AMIT Date:
GAEKWAD 2026.02.23 911.WPL-4296-2026.odt
12:21:35
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.4296 OF 2026
Local Military Authority alias
The Commanding Officer, INS Shikra ....Petitioner
Versus
The Municipal Commissioner,
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. ....Respondents
----
Mr. Rajshekhar Govilkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Shaba Khan i/b.
Mr. Mihir Govilkar for the Petitioner.
Ms. Vaishali Ugale for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Janak D. Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate a/w. Advocate S.K. Mishra,
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Mr. Sajid Mohamed, Mr. Rohit Singh,
Mr. Hitesh Mutha, Mr. Sumit Raghani, Ms. Dipika Batheja and
Ms. Dikshita Pawar i/b. Agrud Partners for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Rahul Jadhav, AE (BP), A Ward and Mr. Shrikant Khairnar, SE (BP), A
Ward present.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 20th FEBRUARY, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Issue notice to the Respondents. Ms. Ugale, the learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Advocates also waive service of notice on behalf of Respondent No.3.
Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt
2. On 16th February, 2026, we had passed the following order :
1. Considering that the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India would be landing at INS Shikra air station and since this Petition has been filed by the Local Military Authority @ the Commanding Officer, INS Shikra and keeping in view the great anxiety expressed as regards the security protocol, the learned Senior Advocate for the Developer
- Respondent No.3, makes a statement and we direct that not a single worker deployed on any activity of whatsoever nature in the writ building, would be permitted to enter the building for the construction, development, masonry activities etc. from midnight of today i.e. 16th February, 2026 until the hearing in this matter on Wednesday dated 18th February, 2026.
2. List this Petition in the urgent Supplementary Board on 18th February, 2026 for passing further orders.
3. It is quite obvious as to why we passed the above order on 16th February, 2026. We were informed that the VVIP movement, beginning with the arrival of the Hon'ble Prime Minister and the entourage, would start on 17th February, 2026. Because of such statement, we passed the above order.
4. The event of the visit of the Hon'ble Prime Minister of the country took place on 17th February, 2026. For the present, there is no movement of any VVIP.
Gauri Gaekwad 2 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt
5. Since the order was passed only because of the visit mentioned above, we suggested to the parties, keeping in view that our supplementary board of fresh first hearing matters nowadays runs into 30 to 50 matters and the regular urgent admissions board runs into around 100 to 150 matters, that we would pass a workable order until the pleadings are complete, since notice in the matter has still not been issued.
6. The learned Senior Advocate for the Developer, Mr. Dwarkadas, acceded to a workable order which could have been as under :
(a) Respondent No.3, the Developer, would continue with the construction at its own risk and, if this Court finally concludes that any construction above the height of the nearest buildings within 500 meters from the Naval base is to be demolished, we would direct demolition of the said floors. This condition was made known to Respondent No.3, who agreed to construct at its own risk and subject himself to the orders of the Court of law;
(b) If Respondent No.3 is to sell the flats upto the height of 53 meters, the parties would be made aware of the pendency of this Petition.
7 The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Govilkar submits on instructions that the Petitioner is not agreeable for the same.
Gauri Gaekwad 3 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt
8. We reminded Mr. Govilkar that the order dated 16th February, 2026 would not have been passed since notice was also not issued. The reason why we passed the order was only because of the arrival of the Hon'ble Prime Minister of the country. However, the Petitioner is unrelenting and now insists that the same order should be continued, which we had passed only under fortuitous circumstances. Notice is not yet issued and the pleadings of Respondent No.3 are yet to see the light of the day.
9. In view of the above, Mr. Govilkar informs us that the Petitioner will not give their willingness or consent for such a workable order until the pleadings are complete. Mr. Dwarkadas made it clear that an affidavit in reply would be filed by the next weekend and that the matter can be listed on any date for final hearing with the said workable order in place. Yet, the Petitioner does not desire to agree to such a workable order.
10. In such circumstances, we would have been justified in relegating this Petition to the pre 16 th February, 2026 stage, because the said order was passed only on account of the exigency communicated to us by the Petitioner. The Petitioner seeks an order with reasons from this Court, even if it be an interim order.
Gauri Gaekwad 4 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt HEARING ON INTERIM RELIEF AND ORDER
11. The learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner has tendered 14 pages of written notes of submissions, when we had requested the parties to give us a short bullet-point submission of 2 to 3 pages so that we could pass a workable order. Be that as it may, the said written notes of submissions are taken on record and marked as 'X-1' for identification.
12. The learned Senior Advocate for Respondent No.3, the Developer, has tendered 13 pages of written notes of submissions along with photographs. The said submissions along with photographs are taken on record and marked as 'X-2' for identification.
13. We have summarized the submissions of the Petitioner from it's written notes, as under :
1. The issue involved is of a grave apprehension of national security of a highly sensitive naval establishment called INS Shikra, which is a Naval Air Station under the Western Naval Command of the Indian Navy, situated at Colaba, Mumbai, and is tasked with Search and Rescue, Casualty and Medical Evacuation missions off the coast of Mumbai. Apart from the Air Station, INS Shikra is also the designated transit heliport for high-level dignitaries including the Hon'ble President, Prime Minister, etc. on a frequent basis.
Gauri Gaekwad 5 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt
2. The circular dated 18.5.2011 stipulates that no construction be permitted within periphery of 500 meters of any Defense Establishment without the NOC from that respective establishment.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
5. There is a concept of shadow and shield which when applied to any construction, means that the new construction would be in the shadow of any existing construction or that the old construction would be as a shield and thus there may not be any objection.
6. The new construction as regards the height, must not offend the concept of line of sight to the Defence Establishment, meaning thereby that from the new construction, the Defence Establishment ought not to be visible. Being the only Naval Air Station in Mumbai, INS Shikra operates multiple types of military helicopters, including the Indian Army, Indian Air Force and the Indian Coast Guard that conduct operations from the base frequently. The threat perception and security assessment can be highlighted by the following security concerns :
a. Direct Line of Sigh observation of helicopter movements, payload carried, flight timings, weapons fitted on aircraft, troops/VVIP movements and emergency responses. xxxxxxxxxxx If this information reaches the wrong hands, can lead to compromise of national security, especially during heightened states when crisis such as the Mumbai bomb blasts, Op. Sindoor, 26/11 (where it was pertinent that Live information on insertion of NSG Commandos from helicopters and troop movements was being shared with the terrorists heavily compromising Operational Security), etc. xxxxxxxxxxxxx Gauri Gaekwad 6 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt c. Unlike military areas and Government buildings (like those between the base and Jadhavji Mansion i.e. the writ structure) cannot be subjected to continuous background checks. Large number of occupants, visitors, or tenants make surveillance and control impractical.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx
7. The objection of INS Shikra is prima facie very clear that the adherence to Government of India guidelines as elaborated in the circular dated 18 May 2011 and further clarified in the circular dated 18 March 2015 whish says that :
NOC from LBA/ Defence Establishment Would not be required in respect of a construction for which permission had been issued by the competent local authority prior to 18.05.2011 (date of circular). However, this proviso shall not apply to any amendment to the said construction permission with regard to height, if such amendment has been allowed after 18.05.2011.
The present case of construction is in clear violation of the said circular dated 18.05.2011, since height increase from 53.07 metres to 68,84 metres has been granted overlooking circular dated 18.05.2011 and dated 18.03.2015.
8. In the present case, though it is claimed that the IOD was granted on 29.07.2010, it was only for G+15 floors and for a height of 53.07 metres. The subsequent approvals of amendment to the building plans thereby increasing the height from 53.07 metres to 68,84 metres are in clear violation of the circular dt. 18.05.2011 and the also the circular dt. 18.03.2015.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gauri Gaekwad 7 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt
10. Thereafter, the plans were amended from time to time in the following manner.
Sr. Date Particulars
No.
1 29.7.2010 Initial approved building plan
showing Ground plus 15 floors
with a height of 53.07 meters.
2 08.03.2011 Amendment approval letter dated
08.03.2011 permitting minor
changes to the sanctioned plans.
3 08.03.2011 Amended elevation plan dated
08.03.2011 showing Ground plus
15 floors with increased height of
53.28 meters.
4 10.02.2014 Amendment approval letter dated
10.02.2014 approving revised
building plans.
5 10.02.2014 Approved amended building plan
dated 10.02.2014 showing
Ground plus 16 floors.
6 17.10.2014 Amendment approval letter dated
17.10.2014 permitting increase in
building height to 59.24 metres.
The Circular dt. 18.05.2011 was
violated by the Municipal
Commissioner, BMC.
7 17.10.2014 Approved amended building plan
dated 17.10.2014 showing
Ground plus 16 floors with a
height of 59.24 metres.
8 09.06.2015 Amendment approval letter dated
09.06.2015 indicating
amendments without increase in
height or floors.
Gauri Gaekwad 8 of 25
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt
9 16.08.2021 Amendment approval letter dated
16.08.2021 permitting Ground
plus 19 floors with total height of
68.84 metres. The Circular dt.
18.05.2011 was violated by the
Municipal Commissioner, BMC.
10 16.08.2021 Approved amended building plan
dated 16.08.2021 reflecting
Ground plus 19 floors and
increased height.
11. NOC was sought for new construction/ redevelopment of Minoo Manor which is in the immediate vicinity of Jadhavji Mansion i.e. the writ structure. On 08.05.2025, while conducting the on-site inspection of Minoo Manor, the ongoing construction of the writ structure was noticed. Immediate enquiries were made, and a letter were sent to the BMC seeking details of construction along with a request for issuing a stop- work notice.
12. Letters were written by the Petitioner to BMC on 29.5.2025, 5.8.2025, 18.11.2025, 5.1.2025 and 13.1.2026 seeking documents related to construction of the writ building and also to issue stop work notice to the Respondent No.3.
13. On 05.01.2026, some records were made available by the BMC to the Indian Navy.
14. The present Writ Petition was filed on 5.2.2026. Thus, from the first date of knowledge of construction at the sight of Jadhavji Mansion on 8.5.2025, immediate steps were taken to gather information and file the petition.
Gauri Gaekwad 9 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt
15. As per the DC regulations, it is the duty of the planning authority to insist upon the NOC from the defence establishment.
16. Until the application for NOC is received by Defence Establishment, there is no scope for the Defence Establishment to have any knowledge of the proposed construction which may not be granted NOC. xxxxxxxxxxxxx It is the statutory obligation and the duty of the BMC to obtain the necessary comments or the NOC from the Defence Establishment. The Defence Establishment cannot be expected to perform the duties of the Planning Authority, i.e. the BMC in the present case. xxxxxxxxxxxxx
17. xxxxxxxxxxxxx The Indian Navy is not expected to carry out 'fact-finding missions' regarding every construction activity in the radius of 500 metres from the boundary of the Defence Establishment, and especially in a crowded city like Mumbai, where there are multiple constructions going on all the time. xxxxxxxxxxxxx
18. In this case, during the inspection of Minoo Manor on 8.5.2025 was the fact of the construction work of Jadhavji Mansion was noticed, and though a request was made to the BMC to give the documents, they were not given till 5.1.2026, and on realizing that the construction offend the safety regulations and poses a grave national security threat, the present petition is filed.
19. The construction activity was going on with a cover of green cloth around it, and the internal activities were not visible from outside. Therefore, the height of the structure was not known when the construction was noticed in May 2025. xxxxxxxxxxxxx
20. The height of the construction was increased 3 times from 2010 to 2021, and it was increased from 53.07 meters to 68.84 meters which was known only after Gauri Gaekwad 10 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt receipt of the amended plans on 6.1.2026. Thus, there was no delay in approaching the Hon'ble High Court. In fact, the report of the IIT regarding Minoo Manor, states that the height of Jadhavji Mansion on 11 December 2024 was 76.67 metres. xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx
22. As regards the construction of 16 to 19 floors and above that, the construction for water tanks etc. also cannot be permitted in as much as from that height the Defence Establishment would be in the line of sight and thus totally impermissible.
23. The other buildings around INS Shikra are either of the Navy or the Government of India and were constructed long before the circulars dated 18.5.2011, which set forth the guidelines.
24. Even if no third party interests are created in the construction from 16 to 19 floors and above, or even if there is a specific condition to be put that the sale, etc. of the premises on the floors between 16 to 19 will be subject to the outcome of the petition and that no equity of whatsoever nature would be considered at the time of order and that the structures would have to be demolished if the order says so does not answer or give solution to the apprehension of the current and existing threat to national security.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
28. Therefore, it is submitted that the petition be heard finally at the earliest convenience of the Hon'ble Court, and till then, the access to any area above the height of 53.07 metres in the said Jadhavji Mansion be barred. Further, any creation of third-party interests in any constructed area or otherwise above 53.07 metres shall be subject to the outcome of the petition, and there shall Gauri Gaekwad 11 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt be no equity claimed by the developer in case the Hon'ble Court directs demolition of, either the entire building or any portion that is found to be illegal.
29. List of Judgments relied upon :
Sr. Citation Parties No. 1. (2014) 2 SCC 491 Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. With Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2. 2022 SCC OnLine Vikram Delite Coop. Hsg. Bom 6700.: (2023) Soc. Ltd. v. Union of India 2 Bom CR 903 & Ors. 3. 2022 SCC OnLine Gorakhnath Shankar Bom 6703: Nakhwa v. Municipal (2023) 3 AIR Bom Corpn. of Greater Mumbai R 788
14. Similarly, we are reproducing the dates and events tendered by Respondent No.3, from it's written submissions as under :
DATES AND EVENTS On 29.07.2010 Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) was issued u/s. 346 of the MMC Act for Jadhavji Mansion situated at C.S. no. 320, Colaba Division, Mumbai ("subject property") (G+ 15 Floors -53.03 mtrs).
Gauri Gaekwad 12 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt On 09.03.2011, Commencement Certificate (CC) was also issued. IOD and CC are both public documents.
On 18.05.2011 the Ministry of Defence (MoD) issued guidelines requiring NOC for construction in the vicinity of Defence Establishments.
a. Where municipal law requires consultation before building plan is approved; NOC before building plan is approved; NOC/ Objection to be issued within 4 months.
b. Where municipal law does not require, but if construction is within 100 m and 500 m for more 4 floor building, station commander can object to the municipality.
Note 1: Since there was no requirement in the municipal law for an NOC, clause a does not apply.
Note 2: In so far as Clause b is concerned, assuming whilst denying that the Writ building comes within clause b, it was for the Defence Station Commander to raise an objection. The objection which the Station Commander could raise would have to be based on a reasonable and justifiable ground that construction in question would be a security hazard. In such a case the Station Commander would have to bring this to the attention of the higher authority who then would be required to take it up with the Municipal Corporation or the Ministry of Defence. Note 3: Since the IOD and CC were public documents, the Station Commander was deemed to be aware of the proposed construction would be beyond four floors.
Note 4: It may be noted that even at the time when IOD and CC were granted there were several buildings in excess of four floors, which fell within the line of sight of INS Shikra.
Note 5: Respondent No. 2 cannot be blamed for granting permissions and sanctions for the Writ Building Gauri Gaekwad 13 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt especially when the said permissions were granted much prior to the issuance of the said Circular.
On 10.02.2014 amendment to approval sought for increasing the number of floors and height of building to G+ 16 Floors i.e. 57.74 mtrs. On 17.10.2014, the said amendment to height and floor was approved.
On 18.03.2015, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) issued modified guidelines :
i. Added proviso to 1(b) in 2011 guideline;
ii. Construction for which permission has been issued prior to 18.05.2011 - no NOC required iii. Proviso not applicable to height amendments, if amendment allowed after 18.05.2011.
Note 1: The revised guidelines dated 18.03.2015 do not apply to the structure because amendments to plan were approved in 2014 by Respondent No. 1 - which are all in the public domain.
On 17.11.2015, MoD issued clarification :
i. Added second proviso to 1(b) in 2011 guidelines; introduced shadow or shield proviso.
ii. Whenever building/ structure of 4 floors or more already exist within 500 meters, construction is in line with or behind i.e. shadow or shield of such building/ structure, Government may, after obtaining comments of LMA, decide whether to approve such proposal;
iii. Order will be implemented prospectively.
Note 1 : Annexed as "A" to this List of Dates are photographs which show that Writ Building is shadowed and shielded by pre-existing structures coming within the line of sight of INC Shikra.
Gauri Gaekwad 14 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt On 16.08.2021 amendment approved for height and floor rise.
i. G +19 floors and 69.94 mtrs.
Note 1: Superstructure/ RCC construction complete on 10.08.2024 upto the maximum permitted height of 69.94 m On 23.10.2023, this Hon'ble Court (Coram: Sunil B. Shukre and M.W. Chandwani JJ.) in W.P. No.3145 of 2021, (Union of India through Ministry of Defence vs. The State of Maharashtra) held that such Executive Guidelines cannot curtail vested property rights.
Note : The Special Leave Petition, therefrom, has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Order dated 27.09.2024, passed in SLP (C) Diary No. 1348/2024 (Union of India vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.). This legal position is, therefore, settled.
On 11.11.2025, Respondent No.3 applied for Bare shell Occupancy Certificate (OC) with BMC. The same is pending with BMC.
On 24.03.2025, Expert report prepared by IIT Bombay noting height and floors of the subject property.
INS Shikra issued first letter dated 29.05.2025 to BMC raising objections and seeking Stop Work Notice. On 07.07.2025, Deputy Chief Engineer, BMC responded claiming sanction prior to Circular dated 18.05.2011and thereby, affirmed completion of G+19 floor construction.
On 05.08.2025, INS Shikra reiterated objections citing MoD Circular dated 18.03.2015 and sought documents.
On 18.11.2025 INC Shikra issued further objection letter seeking immediate stop work notice.
Gauri Gaekwad 15 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt INS Shikra issued letter dated 05.01.2026 noting construction up to Ground plus 23 floors and sought stoppage of work (Factually incorrect statement).
On 13.01.2026, INS Shikra objected to post-2011 amendments dated 10.02.2014 and 16.08.2021 granted without NOC.
Present Writ Petition was filed on 04.02.2026 for prayers that there is no attempt on part of the Petitioner to explain or justify the delay of 15 years.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx SUMMARY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5. The Guidelines dated 18.05.2011 (@Pg. 73 of WP) and 18.03.2015 (@pg. 77 of WP) were issued pending proposed amendments to the Works of Defence Act, 1903. No such amendments have been enacted. The guidelines are executive instructions and do not have the force of law. They cannot override permissions granted under a statute, nor can they retrospectively extinguish vested development rights protected under Article 300A of the Constitution.
6. The Writ Building was sanctioned pursuant to Intimation of Disapproval dated 29.07.2010 (@ pg. 122 of WP) and Commencement Certificate dated 09.03.2011, issued under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act) and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). The foundational permission was granted prior to 18.05.2011 (@pg.73 of WP) i.e., prior to issuance of the first Ministry of Defence guidelines relied upon by the Petitioner. The subsequent circular dated 18.03.2015 (@pg.77 of WP) itself expressly protects the projects where permission was Gauri Gaekwad 16 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt issued before 18.05.2011. On the Petitioner's own showing, therefore, no NOC was required.
7. Even assuming applicability of the guidelines, Clause 1(b) contemplates formation of a reasonable opinion regarding a security hazard and contemporaneous communication of objection to the planning authority. In the present case, no objection was raised between 2010 and 2025. Construction progressed floor by floor over several years. The first objection was raised only on 29.05.2025 (@pg. 103 of WP) i.e. after the structure had already reached G+ 19 floors and was complete for fit outs. A delay of 14 years is wholly inconsistent with any plea of imminent or grave security threat. Such prolonged silence is a clear acquiescence.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
9. The Petitioner's reliance on the 500-meter criterion is misplaced. The IIT Bombay report (@pg.93 of WP) records a distance of 505 meters from Mino Manor to the nearest naval structure. The present building lies further, approximately 597 meters from the nearest naval structure. The Petitioner's attempt to measure distance from the "Main Gate" to show 246 meters is arbitrary and inconsistent with the IIT methodology (@pg. 105 of WP). Distance cannot be selectively measured to suit the relief sought.
10. The Petition does not allege any statutory violation. There is no breach of the MMC Act, no violation of the MRTP Act, and no notification under the Works of Defence Act declaring the area restricted. Section 354-A of the MMC Act applies only to unauthorized construction. The present structure has been constructed strictly in accordance with sanctioned plans.
11. Construction was completed in August 2024. A bare shell Occupancy Certificate has been applied for. Only internal fit outs remain. Demolition of a completed Gauri Gaekwad 17 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt structure, after 15 years of sanctioned development and in the absence of statutory illegality, would be grossly disproportionate, inequitable and destructive of vested rights. Demolition is reserved for cases of patent illegality or fraud. Neither exist here.
12. Respondent No. 3, Opul Constructions Pvt Ltd, respectfully submits that the present Petition seeks an extraordinary and irreversible relief of demolition of a completed G+19 storeyed building (approximately 69.94 mtrs in height) solely on the basis of Executive Guidelines which do not have statutory force. The petition does not allege fraud, misrepresentation, suppression, or construction beyond sanctioned plan. It seeks to retrospectively invalidate statutory permissions granted over 15 years ago.
13. Without prejudice to the above and solely to demonstrate bonafides, Respondent No. 3 is willing, if so directed by this Hon'ble Court, to provide additional architectural shielding to the top four floors of the building so as to eliminate any possible line of sight towards the Defence establishment. Such mitigation, if required, would adequately address any residual concern and renders demolition wholly unnecessary.
15. The construction of Respondent No.3's building has reached a height of G plus 19 floors. In terms of meters, it measures 69.94 meters (rounded off to 70 meters). The Petitioner raises a ground in relation to the modified guidelines of the Ministry of Defence dated 18 th May, 2011 requiring NOC of the Defence establishment for construction in it's vicinity within 100 to 500 meters and more than four floors. The Station Gauri Gaekwad 18 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt Commander has the right to object to the Municipality.
16. The Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) under Section 346 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act was issued for Respondent No.3's proposed construction on City Survey No.320, Colaba Division, Mumbai, on 29th July, 2010 when the proposed construction was G plus 15 floors (53.03 meters). After the deficiencies were removed, the Commencement Certificate was issued on 9th March, 2011 permitting Respondent No.3 to proceed with the construction. On 18th May, 2011, the Ministry of Defence issued their guidelines mandating NOC for construction in the vicinity of the Defence establishment. The stand of the Developer as well as the Corporation before us is, that no such NOC is required from the Petitioner when the plan had already been approved on 9th March, 2011, prior to the introduction of the modified guidelines.
17. Mr. Dwarkadas submits that the building has a plan of G plus 19 floors. The Commencement Certificate is received, in stages. The Developer cannot just add floors as if it is a game of building blocks.
Unless the structural engineering is planned and designed in a way to have a maximum of G plus 23 floors, the Developer cannot add floor upon floor Gauri Gaekwad 19 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt after the structural engineering is initially approved for development of G plus 15 floors. On instructions, he submits that the structural engineering is planned to ensure that a building of G plus 19 floors would stand.
18. We have seen certain photographs placed on record annexed to compilation marked 'X-2'. Some of the photographs give us a fairly clear picture of the surroundings, and which have been taken from the terrace of Respondent No.3's building under development, that there are several tower buildings which are between Respondent No.3's building and the Petitioner's establishment. In fact, from the Petitioner's establishment, the Naval base is beyond sight. This is our prima facie view.
19. The Petitioner has tendered a photograph annexed to it's written notes of submissions marked 'X-1'. The photograph taken from the angle which is placed before us indicates that there are several tower buildings which are in close vicinity of the establishment and some are private residences abutting the establishment. The submission of the learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner is that the buildings in between the Petitioner's establishment and the building under construction by Respondent No.3, are more than 15 years old and, therefore, nothing can be Gauri Gaekwad 20 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt done about them.
20. We are intrigued by the submission of the Petitioner that though these buildings are very close to the Naval establishment and the threat perception would first hover over these buildings, the Naval authorities submit that those buildings cannot be touched because they are more than 15 years old. We do not get an answer regarding the threat perception when we find from the nearby buildings that innumerable windows, doors and balconies of the flat holders/occupants, can clearly see the Petitioner's establishment. As the saying goes, at a 'stone's throw distance', some of such buildings are indeed within such distance.
21. What surprises us is regarding the intelligence network of the Petitioner's establishment. When tower buildings are emerging in close vicinity, the argument of the Petitioner is that they are more than 15 years old and no further construction is permitted, since in a recent example, a building namely, Minoo Manor, had sought permission and the Petitioner's Commandant refused NOC to Minoo Manor. Respondent No.3's building is said to be in the line of Minoo Manor.
Gauri Gaekwad 21 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt
22. If a building as tall as G plus 19 floors in the line of Minoo Manor is being constructed and, according to Respondent No.3, the civil work of the 19th floor was completed in 2024, we are prima facie surprised by the lapse on the part of the Petitioner's intelligence, that they could not even notice a building of G plus 19 floors coming up in the line of Minoo Manor, which is G plus 3 floors. Badhwar Park buildings are in between the Petitioner's establishment and Respondent No.3's building under development. These buildings are G plus 18 floors with a height of 63 meters. Prima facie, this clearly indicates failure of intelligence on the part of the Navy. When these tower buildings are constructed to the height of 63 meters, we are surprised how the Petitioner's intelligence failed to notice the construction of Respondent No.3's building which gradually reached G plus 19, in 2024.
23. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Govilkar submits that the tower buildings in Badhwar Park are Government buildings and some are allotted to the Navy. It is further submitted that since Minoo Manor asked for an NOC, the Petitioner noticed the existence of Respondent No.3 building.
Gauri Gaekwad 22 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt
24. Today, until the pleadings are complete, the anxiety of the Petitioner is that Respondent No.3 is watching over their property. From the records, prima facie, we find that Respondent No.3's building stands at 69.93 meters since 2024. The Petitioner cannot deny that several VVIP movements took place between 2024 and February, 2026. Yet, if Respondent No.3's building has gone unnoticed, we find this could only be attributed to the failure of Naval intelligence at the Colaba Station.
25. In view of the above, we direct, as an interlocutory order to be operational until the pleadings are complete, as under :
(a) Respondent No.3 would develop its property at its own risk and consequences.
(b) If we eventually conclude that NOC is mandatory, we would direct demolition of floors above 53 meters.
(c) If we finally come to a conclusion that the Municipal Corporation has been either complacent or there is laxity on its part, or that it committed a blunder by granting Commencement Certificate without taking NOC of the Petitioner, we would not hesitate to direct prosecution of the Officers of the Municipal Corporation.
(d) Mr. Dwarkadas, on specific instructions from the Developer, states that third party rights have not been created beyond 53 meters as on date, We, therefore, direct that if Respondent No.3 Developer desires to create third party rights or encumbrances, above 53 meters, it will clearly indicate to the purchasers/financers Gauri Gaekwad 23 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt etc., about the pendency of this Petition, this interim order and the risk of facing an order of demolition, which would apply equally to such purchasers/financers as well.
26. Respondent No.3 prays for four weeks' time to file an affidavit in reply on all grounds so as to complete the pleadings from their side. We would appreciate if, instead of four weeks, they complete the said pleadings on or before 9th March, 2026. The learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the rejoinder affidavit would be filed within two weeks thereafter. As such, let the rejoinder affidavit be filed on or before 23rd March, 2026.
27. The above time schedule would apply to the Municipal Corporation as well, and we caution the Corporation to file an affidavit in reply meeting all contentions of the Petitioner which are directed towards the Corporation to quite an extent, in the light of serious objections that the Corporation has not taken the NOC of the Petitioner and did not part with several documents sought by the Petitioner for a period of six months, from 29th May, 2025 till the papers were delivered on 5 th January, 2026, concerning the development of Respondent No.3.
Gauri Gaekwad 24 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::
911.WPL-4296-2026.odt
28. The parties shall note that the above observations in this interim order, are at a prima facie stage. Needless to state, if the Petitioner has any exigency, it would be at liberty to file an Interim Application for seeking further urgent orders.
29. In view of the above, since the pleadings would be completed by 23rd March, 2026, we request the parties to tender their brief recordable written notes of submissions and case law with index and pagination on the next date. We are tentatively listing this Petition for final hearing at admission stage, on 30th March, 2026 to be called out at 3.00 p.m. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) Gauri Gaekwad 25 of 25 ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 21:57:44 :::