Bombay High Court Questions MBMC Over Alleged Violation of Court Order in Windsor Project Dispute

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has issued notice to the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation (MBMC) and its Commissioner, Radhabinod Aribam Sharma, over allegations that the civic body failed to comply with an interim order passed by the court in a dispute involving the Windsor residential project.

A bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad expressed strong displeasure during the hearing and questioned why the municipal corporation appeared to have acted on the directions of a local MLA despite an earlier order of the Division Bench.

The matter came before the court through a contempt petition filed by M/s Grandbuild Land Developers LLP, the developer behind the Windsor project.

Developer alleges action despite court protection

Representing the developer, senior advocate Birendra Saraf told the court that MBMC had allegedly taken action against the project despite the court’s interim order dated April 27.

According to the developer, the court had granted protection against adverse action while the dispute was being considered. However, MBMC subsequently issued a communication directing the developer to stop construction and warning that the permission could be cancelled.

The developer then approached the court, seeking intervention and alleging that the civic authority had failed to follow the court’s directions.

The issue became more complicated after the developer claimed that the MBMC communication was followed by action from the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA).

MahaRERA action also comes under scrutiny

According to the developer, following the MBMC communication, MahaRERA placed the Windsor project in abeyance. The developer also alleged that its bank accounts were frozen and that it was prevented from proceeding with the execution of sale deeds.

The High Court questioned how such steps were taken when the developer had already received interim protection from the court.

The bench observed that MBMC had previously sought time to submit its response and that the court had specifically directed that no adverse order or precipitate action should be taken during that period.

The judges expressed concern over the circumstances in which the civic body proceeded with the stop-work communication.

During the hearing, the bench questioned the corporation about why it appeared to have followed the directions of a local MLA despite the existence of a judicial order.

The court made it clear that directions from elected representatives cannot override orders passed by the judiciary.

Commissioner appears before the court

MBMC Commissioner Radhabinod Aribam Sharma appeared before the court through video conference during the proceedings.

Sharma offered to withdraw the disputed communications and also tendered an apology. He told the court that he had not been aware of the interim order when the action was taken and offered to submit an affidavit explaining the circumstances.

The court, however, declined to immediately close the contempt proceedings.

The bench indicated that the matter was serious and said the commissioner’s affidavit and apology would be considered as the proceedings continued.

Court orders MBMC to withdraw stop-work communications

The High Court subsequently directed MBMC to withdraw all stop-work communications issued against the developer within three working days.

The court also issued directions concerning the action taken by MahaRERA.

MahaRERA was directed to remove adverse messages placing the Windsor project in abeyance from its website within five days. The authority was also directed to unfreeze the developer’s bank accounts.

The directions provide temporary relief to the developer while the larger dispute over the project and the alleged non-compliance with the court’s order continues to be examined.

What is the Windsor project dispute?

The underlying dispute relates to the multi-storey residential project known as Windsor and a piece of land identified as Reservation No. 138.

The reservation is earmarked under the applicable development regulations for a primary school and playground.

According to the developer, it had transferred approximately 1,066.42 square metres of land to MBMC in February 2023. As part of the arrangement, the developer also agreed to construct a school building with more than 2,000 square metres of built-up area.

The developer alleges that the civic body subsequently changed its requirement and sought approximately 2,000 square metres of land instead.

The developer has claimed that the change followed a complaint made by a local MLA and has challenged the action as arbitrary and inconsistent with the applicable development regulations.

Court raises concerns over civic administration

The proceedings also brought broader questions about how municipal authorities implement court directions and communicate judicial orders within their administration.

The bench’s remarks indicated concern over the possibility that officials may have acted without being fully aware of the court’s earlier directions.

The issue was particularly significant because the corporation had allegedly proceeded with action that affected the developer’s construction activity and, subsequently, its dealings with MahaRERA.

The court is now expected to examine the explanations provided by MBMC officials and determine whether the alleged non-compliance amounts to contempt of court.

Similar issue involving BMC also mentioned

During the hearing, the bench referred to another matter in which it had encountered a similar situation involving the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC).

The judges noted that they had recently come across a case concerning the Neville D’Souza Football Ground at Bandra Reclamation, where the municipal commissioner was reportedly not aware of a statement made before the High Court regarding maintenance of status quo.

BMC Commissioner Ashwini Bhide, through senior advocate Girish Godbole, had informed the court that she was not aware of the statement made by the corporation’s lawyer on August 10.

The reference highlighted the court’s concern about whether senior civic officials are adequately informed about commitments and statements made before the judiciary on behalf of municipal bodies.

Case remains under consideration

The Bombay High Court has not closed the contempt proceedings against MBMC or its commissioner. The court will consider the commissioner’s affidavit and explanation before deciding the next course of action.

For the developer, the immediate directions offer relief by requiring the withdrawal of the stop-work communications, removal of adverse project messages from the MahaRERA website and unfreezing of its bank accounts.

However, the larger dispute concerning the Windsor project, the reserved land and the alleged non-compliance with the court’s earlier order remains before the High Court.

The case is likely to remain significant for both the developer and the civic authorities as the court examines whether MBMC acted in breach of its judicial directions and what led to the disputed municipal and regulatory actions.

News source: Information for this article was gathered from a variety of reliable news outlets.