MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court recently refused to stay the tender process for appointing a “construction and development agency” for the redevelopment of the city’s two biggest Mhada layouts in Bandra Reclamation and Adarsh Nagar, Worli, noting that the bidding process was already at an advanced stage and that technical bids were scheduled to be opened on May 20.
The state government had decided to carry out cluster redevelopment of the two layouts through a single private construction and development agency instead of allowing the around 5,000 co-operative housing societies in the layouts to redevelop their buildings individually. Under the proposed model, one agency would undertake integrated redevelopment of the layouts, including infrastructure and amenities, rather than separate redevelopment projects by individual societies.
A division bench of justices MS Karnik and SM Modak on May 6 declined to immediately hear pleas filed by eight co-operative housing societies from the affected Mhada layouts seeking a stay on Government Resolutions (GRs) issued on April 25, 2025 and December 15, 2025. The GRs provide for integrated redevelopment of the layouts through a bidding process for appointment of a construction and development agency.
The petitioner societies challenged the GRs on the ground that they took away the societies’ independent redevelopment rights and forced them into the cluster redevelopment scheme. They argued that the GRs violated their right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution and effectively divested them of their properties without due process of law.
The societies contended that although the land belongs to Mhada, the buildings were constructed under valid leases that gave the societies the right to redevelop their properties. According to the petitioners, these rights were arbitrarily taken away through the cluster redevelopment policy.
Seeking a stay on the tender process, the societies argued that allowing the bidding process to continue would seriously prejudice their rights. They also pointed out that the tender documents did not mention the High Income Group category even though several affected members belonged to that category.
The petitioners further claimed that the redevelopment violated provisions of DCPR 33(5) and 33(9) as the required consent procedure had not been followed and there was no element of public interest involved in the project. They therefore sought interim protection from the court.
Opposing the pleas, advocate general Dr Milind Sathe submitted that the two Mhada layouts, Bandra Reclamation and Adarsh Nagar, Worli, comprise nearly 5,000 housing societies and that many of the 50-60-year-old buildings had become dilapidated. He said the cluster redevelopment project was aimed at improving residents’ living standards and enabling planned infrastructure development.
Sathe also argued that the bidding process was already at an advanced stage and there was no justification to stay it based on objections raised by only eight societies, as such intervention would affect the larger redevelopment project.
Refusing to stay the process, the court observed that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the tender process was allowed to continue, especially since the award of the tender was likely to take time.
The bench also noted that the December 15, 2025 GR lays down a policy for integrated or cluster redevelopment of Mhada layouts in Mumbai measuring 20 acres or more. According to the policy, such redevelopment is necessary for planned infrastructure development and construction of high-quality buildings with necessary amenities.
“For the present we are not inclined to stay the tender process since the award of the tender is likely to take some time,” the bench said.
The court said it would endeavour to hear the petitions finally on June 9 after the state government files its affidavit in reply. The bench clarified that if the petitions could not be heard on the next date, it would consider the petitioners’ plea for interim relief after examining the government’s reply affidavit.
