Uday Dalal AND ORS v. Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies Mumbai division AND ORS
Membership in Cooperative Societies: Sanctioned Plan as the Basis for Determining Eligibility and Preventing Manipulation of Voting Strength.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:53235
Decision Date: 05-12-2025
List of Laws
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; Section 23 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; Section 154B-1(13) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; Section 154B-2 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; Section 154B-3 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; Section 154B-5 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960; Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Case Brief
- Facts: A dispute arose in a cooperative housing society regarding the membership of Respondent No. 3, who claimed membership based on a servant room forming part of Flat No. 5, which was allegedly sold to them. Petitioners, other members of the society, challenged this membership, arguing that the servant room was not an independent flat as per the sanctioned plan and that granting membership would violate the statutory ceiling on the number of members. The Deputy Registrar had granted membership, which was upheld by the revisional authority.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioners filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the orders of the Deputy Registrar and the revisional authority that granted membership to Respondent No. 3. The High Court is exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Issue: Whether the Deputy Registrar could grant membership to Respondent No. 3 based on premises (a servant room) that are not shown as an independent flat in the sanctioned plan of the cooperative housing society, and whether such membership violates the statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, particularly Sections 23, 154B-1(13), 154B-2, 154B-3, and 154B-5.
- Holding: The High Court allowed the writ petitions in part, setting aside the orders of the Deputy Registrar and the revisional authority that confirmed or granted membership to Respondent No. 3. The Court directed the Deputy Registrar to undertake a fresh verification of the sanctioned plan and determine whether the disputed premises formed part of an earlier flat or constituted an independent flat as of the date of registration.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the sanctioned plan is the foundation of membership in a cooperative housing society and that membership cannot be granted based on premises not recognized as an independent flat in the sanctioned plan. The Court emphasized that the Registrar has a duty to ensure that membership is not granted contrary to the sanctioned plan, the statutory ceiling on membership, or the bye-laws of the society. The Court held that the general body's resolution cannot override statutory requirements and that the Registrar must verify the sanctioned plan before deciding on membership. The Court also noted that inspection reports are secondary evidence, and the primary proof is the sanctioned plan and municipal records. The Court distinguished the case from precedents cited by the respondents, such as Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt Ltd v Panchanti Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, stating that those cases did not deal with the specific statutory scheme introduced under Chapter XIII-B of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, which mandates that the number of flats must match the sanctioned plan. The Court also addressed the locus standi of the petitioners, stating that they have a right to challenge illegal enlargement of membership when it affects the management and control of the society.