Bombay High Court Restores Powai Society Committee, Says GR Lapses Not Grounds for Disqualification

Court Declares Section 73CA Cannot Be Used as a Technical Weapon Against Redevelopment Committees

In a significant ruling affecting Mumbai’s self-redevelopment landscape, the Bombay High Court on June 9, 2025, quashed the disqualification of the managing committee of a 150-flat Powai housing society, holding that procedural lapses under the July 2019 GR cannot trigger punitive action unless real prejudice or mala fides are proven.

A Crucial Verdict for Mumbai’s Ageing Societies

The petition was filed by Harish Arora and other members of the newly elected committee, who had initiated redevelopment after a C-1 structural audit warned of collapse risks for nearly 400 residents. The society sits on a 4,200 sq. m. plot in Powai and had secured 78% SGM approval along with a ₹2.8 crore corpus commitment.

Despite this, the Deputy Registrar disqualified the committee in February 2025 under Section 73CA of the MCS Act, citing:

Missing pre-tender due-diligence on developer credentials
Only 45% minority consent affidavits being verified
Alleged non-compliance with guidelines of the July 2019 Maharashtra GR

Importantly, no fraud, diversion of funds, or misconduct was alleged. The previous committee had committed similar procedural shortcuts, but no punitive action was taken.

Court Rejects Registrar’s Rigid Interpretation

The High Court held that GRs issued under Section 79A are directory, not mandatory, particularly when compliance gaps can be cured without harming residents.

The Bench relied heavily on its recent jurisprudence:

Vilas Vishnu Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra (2025 Bom HC 4567) – where minor GR lapses were overlooked to prevent redevelopment delays
Symphony CHS vs Supreme Mega Constructions (2025 Bom HC 2345) – where disqualification was upheld only due to serious financial irregularities, not technical faults

The court observed that Section 73CA is designed to protect ethical standards, not serve as a “technical veto tool” against elected committees.

“Disqualification is an extreme measure and must be backed by proven mala fides or resident harm. Technical errors, especially in Mumbai’s high-pressure redevelopment ecosystem, cannot invite such punitive consequences.”

RERA and Article 14: Court Strengthens the Momentum Principle

Invoking Section 4 of RERA, the Court said redevelopment must prioritise project momentum over formalism, especially when 1,300 disputes from Powai alone were filed in 2025.

The Bench criticised the Registrar for:

Applying GR norms mechanically
Ignoring the society’s overwhelming majority approval
Failing to conduct any prejudice or impact assessment
Creating unequal burdens on societies, violating Article 14

The ruling emphasised that in Mumbai’s seismically vulnerable and ageing building stock, rigid bureaucracy cannot stall resident-driven redevelopment.