- within Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment, Employment and HR and Finance and Banking topic(s)
- with Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Chemicals, Telecomms and Law Firm industries
Driven by land scarcity and supported by evolving government policies, the redevelopment of Co-operative Housing Society properties has become the primary method for creating new living spaces in Mumbai. To facilitate this, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has recently delivered a series of judgments that streamline the regulatory environment, ensuring smoother and faster project execution.
This note analyses the regulatory background and three landmark judgments that clarify the rights of minority members, the nature of government guidelines, and the scope of the powers of the Registrar of Societies or person deputed by him/her (Registrar).
The Regulatory Background: Section 79A Guidelines
To ensure transparency and prevent the concentration of power within a few Managing Committee members, the Maharashtra Government issued the "Redevelopment Guidelines" (Government Resolution dated July 4, 2019) under Section 79A of the MCS Act constituted under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act).
Key features of these guidelines include:
- Transparency: A prescribed procedure for appointing developers.
- Oversight: The Registrar of Societies holds a supervisory role—specifically to attend the Special General Body Meeting (SGM) where the developer is selected.
- Record Keeping: Societies must submit resolutions and notices to the Registrar.
Despite these guidelines, disputes frequently arose regarding procedural lapses and the Registrar's practice of issuing "No Objection Certificates" (NOCs), which often stalled projects.
Landmark Judgments Shaping the Landscape
Recent rulings by the Bombay High Court have resolved several ambiguities that previously hampered redevelopment.
1. Minority Dissent Cannot Stall Progress
- Case: Devyani Gulabsi vs. Saidale Co-operative Housing Society & Ors. (Judgment dated 6th October 2025)
- The Issue: A plaintiff objected to the redevelopment, citing changes in the developer's structure (a Joint Venture) and changes in the FSI regulation used (from DCPR Regulation 30(A)(1) to 33(20)(B)).
- The Verdict: The Court refused to grant a temporary injunction halting the project.
- Key Takeaways:
- Majority Rule: Once a resolution is approved by the majority, a handful of members cannot stall the process.
- Jurisdiction: If redevelopment is not explicitly listed in the society's bye-laws as its primary business, disputes may fall under the High Court's jurisdiction rather than the Co-operative Court.
2. Guidelines are Directory, Not Mandatory
- Case: Devendrakumar Jain vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Judgment dated 6th October 2025)
- The Issue: A petitioner alleged that the society appointed a developer via a Letter of Intent without issuing public tender notices as prescribed by the 2019 Guidelines.
- The Verdict: Relying on previous precedents (Maya Developers vs. Neelam R. Thakkar), the Court held that the 2019 Guidelines are directory (for guidance) rather than mandatory (obligatory).
- Key Takeaways:
- Substance Over Form: A procedural lapse is not an actionable wrong unless it violates the objective of the guidelines (fairness and transparency).
- Validity: A majority decision taken in a properly convened meeting under the supervision of the Authorized Officer prevails, even if minor procedural deviations occur.
3. The Registrar Cannot Issue "No Objection" Certificates
- Case: Baltazar Fernandes & Ors. vs. The Deputy Registrar of Societies, H-West Ward & Ors. (Judgment dated 17 October 2025)
- The Issue: The Registrar had granted a "No Objection" for a society's redevelopment, a practice that had become common but had no basis in law.
- The Verdict: The Court ruled that the Registrar lacks the statutory authority to issue an "NOC" or to approve/disapprove redevelopment decisions.
- Key Takeaways:
- Sovereignty of the General Body: The General Body is the ultimate decision-making authority. The Registrar cannot substitute the collective will of the members.
- Limited Role: The Registrar's function is strictly supervisory (ensuring meetings are held lawfully), not regulatory regarding the commercial decision of redevelopment.
Regulatory Update: The November 2025 Circular
In compliance with the Baltazar Fernandes judgment, the Office of the Cooperative Commissioner issued a circular on 4 November 2025, issuing instructions to all Registrars in Maharashtra:
- No NOCs: Registrars are prohibited from demanding, accepting, or issuing "No Objection" letters for redevelopment.
- Mandatory Appointment: The Registrar must appoint an Authorized Officer within 14 days of receiving a proposal for an SGM. Failure to do so attracts disciplinary action.
- Role of Authorized Officer:
- Attend the SGM for developer selection.
- Verify quorum and video recording.
- Observe proceedings without interference.
- Dispute Resolution: If members are dissatisfied with the SGM decision, the Registrar must direct them to file a dispute in the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act, rather than intervening personally.
Conclusion
These judicial and administrative developments mark a significant shift toward accelerating redevelopment in Mumbai. By clarifying that the General Body is supreme, that minority dissent cannot hold a project to ransom, and that the Registrar's role is purely supervisory, the legal framework has become far more conducive to development.
For developers and societies alike, this reduces the regulatory roadblocks and places the focus back on the commercial and consensus-based aspects of redevelopment.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
