Bombay HC ruled deputy registrar cannot disqualify managing committee for non mandatory procedural lapses in housing society redevelopment projects

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on June 9 ruled that the deputy registrar has no power to disqualify the entire managing committee based on alleged procedural lapses by the committee of a govt resolution of 2019, which was not mandatory in nature.
The GR prescribed procedural safeguards to be observed by cooperative housing societies while undertaking redevelopment projects.
Justice Amit Borkar, pronouncing the judgment on the first day of the court resuming after the summer vacation, also directed the State Principal Secretary (Co-operation), to appoint an officer "of appropriate rank and integrity to conduct a comprehensive and impartial inquiry into the role and conduct" of the deputy registrar, within eight weeks and to submit a compliance report before it.
The inquiry is for the officer having ignored binding precedents and passing orders without hearing members, the HC ruled. The Judge said, 'There is a grave risk that arbitrary actions of this nature may encourage undesirable practices, including possible nexus between vested private interests and certain regulatory officers. This may result in manipulation of redevelopment projects or society affairs for personal or commercial gain, in disregard of the welfare of the society members.
'
The HC set aside the disqualification of the managing committee members and the appointment of an administrator for a Bandra society. The HC held that the Registrar, despite definitive binding rulings of the court in the past which held the GR to be recommendatory, not mandatory in nature, attempted to justify the disqualification by terming the facts distinguishable. '
'The officer disqualified the members without adhering to minimum procedural fairness,' Justice Borkar held.
'Such actions, if permitted to continue without proper judicial scrutiny, may cause serious harm to the purposes of the cooperative movement,' the HC held, adding, 'When statutory authorities interfere with the functioning of duly elected managing committees without following due process or without sufficient legal basis, it not only weakens the democratic foundation of cooperative societies but also creates an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty among office bearers and members.
'
The very object and scheme of the MCS Act, which is to promote transparency, accountability, and self-governance among cooperative societies, stands defeated if statutory powers are exercised to undermine duly elected bodies rather than to support and guide them.
The HC underscored how the 'very spirit of cooperative governance lies in the principle of democratic decision-making and collective management by members.
If elected committees can be removed or destabilised on vague or insubstantial grounds, it would amount to indirect interference in the choice of the members who have exercised their statutory right to elect their representatives. Such interference cannot be allowed unless it is clearly supported by law and necessary to prevent actual and proven mismanagement or misconduct.
'
'Once this Court has authoritatively held that the directions in the form of GR of 2019 under Section 79A (of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act) are directory, failure to follow directory provisions does not attract penal consequences,' Justice Borkar held, offering relief to the managing committee members who petitioned the HC against the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, 'H-West' Ward, Mumbai, and nine others, including the Bandra cooperative housing society.
The HC agreed with arguments of Mayur Khandeparkar counsel for the members that the disqualification flouted basic principles of natural justice, as they were issued no notice and given no chance to be heard. Besides, he contended there was sufficient compliance of the GR and argued that the deputy registrar demonstrated bias in favour of the complainants by invoking Section 79H(3) of the MCS Act, which stood repealed and had no applicability.
''
Girish Godbole, senior counsel for the complainants, said the disqualification was justified and, in any case, they had already challenged the deputy registrar's order under the Act before the higher authority, and the HC ought not to intervene at this stage. Godbole argued that while a Registrar has no power to annul resolutions of the general body, he retains the jurisdiction under Section 79A(3) to disqualify members of the managing committee for breach of certain directives.
The HC, found that the members made out a 'strong prima facie case' of violation of natural justice as they had 'no fair opportunity to be heard before such serious consequences were imposed.' The issue raised 'goes to the root of natural justice, jurisdiction, and legal propriety,' said Justice Borkar, and noted that when viewed in its entirety, the matter 'reveals a troubling pattern.'
The six managing committee members assailed the legality of three separate but interrelated orders of the dy registrar passed in February 2025 under the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, disqualifying them for six years.
They also challenged a Feb 20 appointment of an officer for the society's affairs.
The building's former managing committee had initiated steps for redevelopment of the society property and tenders were invited. But allegations of mismanagement surfaced and in Nov 2023 an administrator was appointed for the society.
In august 2024 elections were held and a new managing committee was voted in. The new committee continued the redevelopment plans. In November 2024 the deputy registrar received two complaints from society members objecting to the redevelopment process by the new committee, alleging that shortlisting voting process held last October flouted directives in the 2019 GR.
The HC directed that on conclusion of the inquiry, a detailed compliance report setting out the findings and action taken, if any, shall be filed before it by August 25. The HC rejected a request made by the State to stay its order.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New Indian Express

28 minutes ago

• New Indian Express

Calcutta HC stays Mamata govt's financial relief scheme for non-teaching staff who lost jobs after SC order

KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court on Friday ordered an interim stay till September 26 on the West Bengal government's financial scheme to provide interim relief for Group C & D non-teaching employees in state-aided schools, who had recently lost their jobs following the Supreme Court order on April 3. Justice Amrita Sinha in the interim order prohibited the state from implementing the scheme till September 26 or until further orders. Earlier, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee had announced a monthly honorarium of Rs 25,000 and Rs 20,000 for some 5,000-odd Group C and D non-teaching employees in state-aided schools who had lost their jobs after the apex court's ruling. The Calcutta High Court's order is related to the West Bengal government's notification providing monthly interim relief of Rs 25,000 and Rs 20,000 respectively to them. Justice Sinha on Friday directed the petitioners to file affidavits within four weeks. The West Bengal government will file an affidavit in reply within a fortnight thereafter before the petition comes up for the next hearing. The waitlisted candidates had filed the petition in the High Court urging for a stay on the state government's relief scheme arguing that the scheme 'frustrated' the Supreme Court order. Reacting to the High Court order, the Trinamool Congress attacked the opposition parties and labelled them as 'real enemies of people of Bengal'. The party spokesperson Kunal Ghosh said, 'After the Supreme Court's order, Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee extended an interim financial allowance to the affected Group-C and Group-D workers. But the Bangla-Birodhi brigade (anti-Bengal brigade) ran to the Calcutta High Court and got it struck down.' He further added, 'They won't help the people, and they won't let anyone else help either. They are enemies of Bengal. Enemies of our people. Plain and simple.'

Hans India

4 hours ago

• Hans India

Calcutta High Court Blocks Bengal Government's Stipend Plan For Dismissed Staff

The Calcutta High Court has intervened to block the West Bengal government's attempt to provide monthly stipends to non-teaching staff who lost their positions following a Supreme Court ruling on recruitment irregularities. Justice Amrita Sinha delivered the order on Friday, effectively halting the state government's stipend payments that were designed to support Group C and D non-teaching employees affected by the April Supreme Court judgment. The controversy stems from a major recruitment fraud that occurred in 2016 through the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). The Supreme Court had previously upheld the Calcutta High Court's decision to terminate the appointments of over 25,000 teaching and non-teaching staff members due to irregularities in the selection process. In April, a Supreme Court bench comprising former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar characterized the recruitment process as fundamentally flawed and fraudulent. The court found evidence of systematic manipulation including OMR sheet tampering and rank falsification. Following the mass dismissals, the Mamata Banerjee-led state government announced a financial support package for affected non-teaching staff. The scheme proposed monthly stipends of Rs 25,000 for Group C employees and Rs 20,000 for Group D staff members. This compensation plan was the government's response to the widespread job losses resulting from the Supreme Court's strict enforcement of recruitment integrity standards. Multiple petitions were filed in the Calcutta High Court challenging both the government's stipend decision and the format of new recruitment processes being planned for teaching positions. The court reserved judgment on these matters the previous Monday before delivering Friday's ruling. The High Court's intervention reflects ongoing judicial scrutiny of how the state government handles the aftermath of the recruitment scandal. The Supreme Court's April decision was unambiguous in its condemnation of the 2016 recruitment process. The court described the appointments as fraudulent and equivalent to cheating, finding no grounds to overturn the High Court's original dismissal order. However, the Supreme Court did provide some relief by ruling that dismissed employees would not be required to return salaries they had already received during their employment period. The case highlights the broader implications of recruitment fraud in public sector employment. With over 25,000 positions affected across state-run and state-aided schools, the scandal has had significant consequences for both the education system and the individuals whose careers were disrupted. The High Court's latest ruling adds another layer of complexity to the state government's efforts to address the fallout from the recruitment irregularities while maintaining judicial oversight of remedial measures.

The Hindu

4 hours ago

• The Hindu

Madras High Court initiates suo motu contempt against T.N. Chief Secretary Muruganandam, his predecessor Shiv Das Meena

The Madras High Court, on Friday (June 20, 2025), issued statutory notices to incumbent Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary N. Muruganandam and his predecessor Shiv Das Meena (thus retired) in suo motu contempt of court proceedings initiated against them and directed both of them to appear before the court on July 21. Justice Battu Devanand passed the orders after being prima facie convinced that the two officials had failed to comply with an order passed by the court on September 19, 2023 in true letter and spirit and had attempted to show compliance only after the court directed the High Court Registry to register the suo motu contempt petition. It was while disposing of a batch of three writ petitions in 2023 that Justice Devanand had directed the Chief Secretary to constitute a committee for recommending necessary amendments to the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023 since they suffered from various infirmities. The judge had also ordered that the committee should consider the issue of fixing a time frame for providing compassionate employment to the dependants of government employees who die in service and consider the possibility of maintaining a district wise list of dependants eligible for compassionate appointment. Then, the judge had also directed the Chief Secretary to file an action taken report before the court within three months. However, on June 5, 2025 while hearing another writ petition related to compassionate employment, the judge learnt that the Chief Secretary had not complied with the orders passed by him way back in 2023. Therefore, he directed the High Court Registry to register a suo motu contempt of court petition against all officers who had held the post of Chief Secretary since September 19, 2023. Accordingly, the Registry registered the contempt petition against Mr. Meena and Mr. Muruganandam and listed it for admission on Friday. The judge was informed that Mr. Meena had served as the Chief Secretary from September 2023 (when the court order was passed) till August 19, 2024 when he got appointed as the Chairperson of Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) and that Mr. Muruganandam had been holding the post since then. When the contempt petition was heard on Friday, Additional Advocate General M. Suresh Kumar submitted a Government Order issued on June 11, 2025 constituting a committee, as ordered by the High Court in 2023, for recommending amendments to the rules related to compassionate appointments. However, expressing dissatisfaction over the G.O. having been issued only after the High Court ordered registration of the suo motu contempt petition, the judge decided to proceed with the matter and issued statutory notices to both the officers requiring their presence before the court after 30 days.