Facts: A petitioner association representing 17 cooperative housing societies challenged a communication from the Maharashtra government that waived the requirement for the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to obtain no-objection certificates (NOCs) from all 17 societies before redeveloping their dilapidated buildings. The buildings, categorized as C-1 (unsafe and requiring demolition), were constructed by the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board (MHADB), with MHADA owning both the buildings and the land. A prior developer, Shreepati, was terminated due to failure to meet financial requirements, leading MHADA to initiate a new tender process. 14 out of 17 societies consented to MHADA's redevelopment plan.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, challenging the government's communication and the subsequent tender process initiated by MHADA. The petition also contested the MHADA's authority to proceed without unanimous consent from all societies, citing ongoing arbitration proceedings with the previous developer, Shreepati.
Issue: Did the State Government err in waiving the requirement for MHADA to obtain NOCs from all 17 cooperative housing societies before proceeding with the redevelopment project, considering Regulation 33(5) of the Development Control & Promotion Regulations, 2034 (DCPR 2034)?
Holding: No, the High Court held that the State Government did not err in waiving the NOC requirement. The writ petition was dismissed.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that MHADA remained the owner of the land and buildings, and the societies were merely formed for day-to-day management. Regulation 33(5) of DCPR 2034, specifically clause 7(b), allows MHADA to proceed with redevelopment with the consent of the cooperative housing society in the form of a valid resolution. Since a majority (14 out of 17) of the societies had consented, and the buildings were in a dangerous condition requiring immediate action, the waiver was justified. The court also noted that the proposed redevelopment by MHADA offered enhanced tenements to the occupants and that the petition appeared to be instigated by the previous developer, Shreepati, who had failed to fulfill its obligations. The court emphasized that the members would benefit from the redevelopment under the control of a statutory body like MHADA, rather than being at the mercy of a private developer.