Bombay High Court Quashes Disqualification Of Bandra Housing Society Committee

Judge Rules Redevelopment Guidelines Are Directory, Not Mandatory; Orders Inquiry Into Registrar’s Conduct

In a significant ruling impacting housing society redevelopments, the Bombay High Court has set aside the disqualification of committee members of Bandra Trishul Premises Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., holding that alleged breaches of the 2019 Government Resolution on redevelopment cannot be grounds for automatic removal.

Delivering judgment on June 9, 2025, Justice Amit Borkar allowed Writ Petition No. 3433 of 2025, filed by Harish Arora and others, quashing two impugned orders passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies in February 2025.

The Dispute

The controversy began when some members of the Bandra society lodged complaints with the Deputy Registrar (Respondent No. 1), alleging irregularities in the redevelopment process initiated by the newly elected managing committee. Acting on these complaints, the Registrar issued show-cause notices — but only to a few members — before disqualifying the entire managing committee for six years under Section 79A(3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 on 11 February 2025.

Soon after, on 20 February 2025, the Registrar invoked Section 77A to supersede the committee and appoint an Administrator.

The petitioners approached the High Court, contending that the orders were illegal, disproportionate, and passed in violation of natural justice.

High Court’s Findings

The Court held that the Government Resolution (GR) dated 4 July 2019, which sets out redevelopment guidelines, is directory and recommendatory rather than mandatory. Therefore, non-compliance with the GR cannot by itself justify disqualification.

Justice Borkar underscored that:

The power under Section 79A(3) is narrow and person-specific. A committee cannot be disqualified collectively without proof that specific members failed to comply with directives.
The principles of natural justice were violated since some petitioners were never served notices, and no opportunity of hearing was granted.
The federal society’s consultation, a statutory safeguard under the proviso to Section 79A(3), was ignored, rendering the order invalid.
Section 77A can only be used to fill a vacuum in administration, such as when no committee is elected. Its use here to replace an elected body was a colourable exercise of power.
Statutory authorities must follow binding High Court precedents. Failure to do so amounts to judicial indiscipline.

The Outcome

The High Court quashed both the February 11 and February 20, 2025 orders, restored the elected managing committee, and directed an inquiry into the conduct of the Deputy Registrar.

Justice Borkar also observed that the existence of an alternate remedy, such as a revision application under Section 154, does not bar writ jurisdiction when there are jurisdictional errors or violations of natural justice.

Wider Implications

This ruling is expected to have a far-reaching impact on housing society redevelopments across Maharashtra, particularly in Mumbai, where disputes often arise over adherence to redevelopment guidelines. The decision reinforces the idea that statutory safeguards and natural justice must prevail over arbitrary administrative action