Housing society managing committees can’t be removed merely on suspicion or due to minor lapses: Bombay HC

A single-judge bench of Justice Amit B Borkar passed a verdict on appeal filed by Jijau Coop. Housing Society Ltd challenged the February 13, 2025 order passed by the Assistant Registrar that removed the managing committee of the society and appointed an Administrator  to handle day-to-day affairs of the society.

The appellate authority of the Joint Registrar on August 26, upheld the earlier order, prompting the society to approach the High Court.

The petitioner society, through advocates Vivek V Salunke and Manthan A Chaudhari, submitted that members in a general body meeting held in June, 2022, decided that each household would contribute Rs. 10, 000 per month for five to ten months for repair and painting work.

In a subsequent meeting, based on an estimate presented by the structural engineer, it was decided that, after completion of the work, the final contribution amount would be recalculated and 95 per cent of the members agreed to  pay the contributions.

However, the Assistant Registrar, based on a complaint of two members of the society, appointed an authorised officer who gave a report in October, 2024 that the society was not functioning as per the byelaws and the provisions of the Act.

The society argued that despite it replying to the show-cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar stating that it had complied with the regulations, the authority concerned passed an impugned order, which was later upheld by the Joint Registrar.

The petitioner society argued the authorities failed to consider that the general body had approved the contribution scheme as a temporary arrangement for repairs building urgently required repairs and 95 per cent of the members paid their contribution.

However, advocate B A Lawate, representing the complainant members, and Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) Dhruti Kapadia for the state supported the impugned orders.

Justice Borkar, in his verdict noted that Section 78A (Registrar’s power of supersession of committee or removal of member ) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 provides a “serious” and “drastic” power which “must be used with caution.”

The judge noted the Registrar must look into evidence, record reasons and “vague complaints without documents cannot form the basis of extreme action.”

” The elected committee (that represents the will of the members) is answerable, but removal is permitted only when the harmful act is established through material on record,” the HC recorded.

Justice Borkar noted that the allegations did not show any  financial irregularity or that the society had stopped functioning or its administration had collapsed. The judge said the complainants merely approached the Registrar only because they disagreed with the contribution fixed by the general body, a supreme authority of the society.

“Thus, the impugned orders do not satisfy the test of law required for supersession under Section 78A. The drastic action of removing an elected committee cannot rest on incomplete reasons or violation which is minor in nature,” the HC held.