- Case
- UNNAT NAGAR DIVISION 3 CSHL AND ANR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR HONBLE MINISTRY OF HOUSING ADN COOPERATION AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 07-01-2025)
- Law
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
Facts: A cooperative housing society (Petitioner-Society) challenged orders that subdivided it into two new societies (Respondent Nos. 4 and 5). The Petitioner-Society was formed in 1996 after MHADA sold 144 tenements to the occupants. Some members sought bifurcation to pursue self-redevelopment, leading to the Deputy Registrar's orders dividing the society. The Petitioner-Society argued that the bifurcation was driven by minority members opposing redevelopment and that the Deputy Registrar did not follow the correct procedure under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) and Rules, specifically regarding consultation with the Federal Society.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioner-Society initially filed appeals before the Divisional Joint Registrar, which were dismissed. Subsequently, revision applications before the Minister-Co-operation were also dismissed. The Petitioner-Society then filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the orders of the Deputy Registrar, Divisional Joint Registrar, and Minister-Co-operation.
Issue: Did the Deputy Registrar err in the process of bifurcating the Petitioner-Society, specifically concerning the timing and manner of consultation with the Federal Society as prescribed under Section 18 of the MCS Act and Rule 17 of the MCS Rules, and does this procedural irregularity vitiate the subdivision orders?
Holding: No, the High Court held that the Deputy Registrar's orders for bifurcation were valid. The court found that the essential requirement of consultation with the Federal Society under Section 18 of the MCS Act was met, and any deviation from the precise order of steps outlined in Rule 17 did not prejudice the Petitioner-Society.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 18 of the MCS Act mandates consultation with the Federal Society but is silent on the exact stage. Rule 17 specifies that the Registrar should prepare a draft scheme, consult the Federal Society, and then issue a draft order to the society. While the Registrar consulted the Federal Society after preparing the draft order, the court found that the objective of consultation was met because the Federal Society's opinion was considered. The court also noted that subsequent developments, such as members vacating tenements and commencing demolition, supported the bifurcation. The court distinguished the case from Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Another Versus. Anand Darshan C.H.S. Limited and Others, emphasizing that the key issue was whether the Federal Society's opinion was considered, not the precise sequence of consultation. The court also cited The Bombay Catholic Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Versus V. B. Mathankar & others, stating that consultation with the Federal Society is otherwise merely directory.
