-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
“935 Notices Issued Without Jurisdiction – This Has the Colour of a Scam,” In a powerful ruling Bombay High Court, comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Arif S. Doctor, strongly condemned the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) for what it termed a “colossal misuse of powers” under Section 79-A of the MHAD Act, 1976.
Hearing a batch of writ petitions led by Javed Abdul Rahim Attar & Others, the Court held that 935 notices issued by MHADA's Executive Engineers for redevelopment were “ex-facie illegal”, having been issued without satisfying the basic statutory requirements. The Court emphasized that “visual inspection” cannot replace a statutory declaration that a building is dangerous, as mandated by law.
Declaring that the entire episode appears to have the “colour of a scam”, the Court ordered an independent judicial inquiry headed by Justice J. P. Devadhar (Retd.) and Shri Vilas Dongre (Retd. District Judge).
The petitions arose out of widespread grievances against MHADA’s issuance of Section 79-A notices to buildings in prime localities across Mumbai, allegedly without jurisdiction. The notices were issued based on mere visual inspections and in the absence of a mandatory declaration under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act or by a Competent Authority under MHAD Act.
The petitioners contended that such actions amounted to “blatant abuse of power”, infringing their constitutional rights under Article 300A (right to property) and Article 14 (equality before law).
The Court, taking note of the sheer scale of the illegal notices—935 in total—remarked,
“It appears to be quite clear that these notices are issued wholly without jurisdiction… this pattern is quite unique.”
At the heart of the matter was the interpretation and application of Section 79-A of the MHAD Act, introduced in 2022, which permits redevelopment of cessed buildings only if a building is declared dangerous by:
The Municipal Corporation under Section 354 of the MMC Act, or
A Competent Authority as defined under Section 65 of the MHAD Act.
The Court unequivocally held: “Whether a building is dangerous or not, cannot be the ipse dixit of the concerned officers… this factum is required to be decided only in the manner the provision ordains.”
Pointing to a lack of statutory authority in the hands of the Executive Engineers who issued the notices, the Court observed:
“The Executive Engineer had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices. It prima facie appears to us that this is a high-handed action… we would be failing in our duty if we did not view the matter through the lens of the rule of law.”
Court’s Analysis on the SOP and Role of Executive Engineers:
MHADA sought to justify the mass issuance of notices based on a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 5 December 2024, allegedly empowering engineers to act under Section 79-A.
The Court struck down the SOP, observing: “The SOP is contrary to the scheme of the MHAD Act and ultra vires. It creates a parallel machinery unknown to the statute. Such executive guidelines cannot override legislative command.”
It further noted: “We are called upon to believe that the Executive Engineer happened to be at the building, visually noticed it is not in good condition, and hence, thought it appropriate to issue a Section 79-A notice… There cannot be a higher highhandedness than this.”
The Court found it particularly troubling that:
“Some of these notices were issued and then are withdrawn, as if it is some kind of game.”
Quoting from para 26 of the judgment, the Court emphasized:
“Such notices are issued purely at the ipse dixit of these officers and on a brazen non-compliance of the requirements of sub-section (1) of Section 79-A.”
Violation of Constitutional Rights and Rule of Law:
The Court strongly condemned the manner in which such notices were issued, holding that:
“Such valuable rights of different stakeholders are brazenly violated… bringing about a situation of total lawlessness and absence of the rule of law, affecting hundreds of properties.”
In words that conveyed the gravity of the situation, the Bench said: “The issue has gathered the colour of a racket/scam under a modus operandi of misusing the provisions of law, namely Section 79-A, to foster redevelopment of property at the behest of unscrupulous persons with vested interests.”
“If the actions of these officials are to be accepted as lawful, it would amount to re-writing the legislative provisions… and recognizing a regime of colossal arbitrariness and abuse of powers.”
In a comprehensive set of orders, the Court: “Appointed a Committee headed by Shri Justice J. P. Devadhar (Retd.) along with Shri Vilas Dongre (Retd. Principal District Judge) to examine the issues in regard to the 935 notices, the SOP dated 5 December 2024, and the role of various officials.”
“Directed MHADA to place before the Committee all records, including the names of officials who issued notices, status of properties, and redevelopment proposals.”
“Ordered the immediate withdrawal of 46 post-judgment notices.”
“Directed that the remaining 889 notices shall be kept in abeyance until further orders.”
“Expressly stated that all impugned notices not withdrawn shall remain stayed.”
Dismissing MHADA’s request for a stay of the judgment, the Court held:
“Considering the seriousness of the issues involved, we reject the request.”
The Bombay High Court’s judgment is not merely a condemnation of administrative excess—it is a declaration of judicial fidelity to statutory discipline, constitutional rights, and the rule of law. It sets a benchmark in ensuring that redevelopment cannot become a tool for illegal enrichment or bureaucratic overreach.
As the Court rightly observed:
“If a power is given by statute and a method is prescribed, it must be exercised in that manner or not at all.”
In exposing what may well become one of the largest redevelopment controversies in Mumbai’s recent legal history, the Court has underscored a timeless constitutional truth: procedure is not a mere formality—it is the essence of justice.
Date of Decision: 28 July 2025
