Bombay High Court Quashes Developer’s Disqualification, Calls Redevelopment GR ‘Directory’ and Not Mandatory

Court Restores Bid in Ghatkopar Self-Redevelopment Case, Says Technical Lapses Cannot Stall Urgent Housing Projects

In a significant ruling impacting hundreds of self-redevelopment projects across Mumbai, the Bombay High Court on June 9, 2025 set aside the disqualification of developer Vilas Vishnu Jadhav in a Ghatkopar East housing society’s redevelopment process. The Court held that the 2019 Government Resolution (GR) issued under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is directory in nature, meaning non-compliance with its procedural requirements cannot automatically result in disqualification.

Jadhav had been removed by the Registrar in February 2025 for failing to file two documents:
• a pre-bid audit report on corpus utilisation, and
• minority consent logs.

However, the society had already approved his appointment with 76% SGM majority and received a ₹2.1-crore initial deposit, while the 55-year-old structure housing 270 residents had been certified as D2-grade and unsafe.

Court Says Registrar Overreached, Stalled Redevelopment Without Evidence of Fraud

The High Court sharply criticised the Registrar’s action, observing that Section 79A allows the State to issue guidelines, but these cannot be used to veto a developer’s bid unless there is fraud, prejudice, or bias. The Court drew parallels with its earlier ruling in Kamgar Swasadan CHSL vs. State of Maharashtra (2024), where minor procedural lapses were condoned to avoid delaying rehabilitation of vulnerable residents.

According to the Bench, the Registrar’s order amounted to “excessive overreach” because:

The General Body under Section 73 is the supreme authority, and the Registrar’s powers extend only to verifying majority and equity, not cancelling bids on technical submissions.
RERA’s emphasis on timelines conflicts with “rigid formalisms” in the GR.
Mumbai’s 950+ Ghatkopar redevelopment proposals in 2025 cannot be held hostage to avoidable procedural halts.
Unlike Mercury CHSL vs. State (2025)—where substantive biases existed—this case had no adverse audit findings or mala fide intent.

The Court stressed that redevelopment involves rights to safe housing, and technical lapses should be cured through supplementary filings, not through blanket bans.

Bid Reinstated with Conditions; Costs Imposed on Registrar

The High Court restored Jadhav’s nomination and directed the society and developer to proceed with tender steps and BMC approvals. It issued a set of structured directions:

Audit submissions must be filed within 30 days.
The society must secure 60% minority member inclusions through a Special General Meeting.
The BMC may process IOD (Intimation of Disapproval) approvals.
₹30,000 transit rent per month will be paid from the corpus to nearly 70% low-income families.
A statewide bar is imposed on disqualifying developers without proving prejudice or fraud.
The Registrar must deposit ₹60,000 as costs into the society’s escrow for acting beyond authority.
All remaining GR inconsistencies will be reviewed by a three-member committee to ensure uniformity, without punitive holds.
RERA-aligned quarterly disclosures will be mandatory going forward.

Major Boost to 800+ Mumbai Societies Waiting for Redevelopment

The ruling is being viewed as a breakthrough for Mumbai’s self-redevelopment movement. By holding the 2019 GR to be directory, not mandatory, the Court has prioritised resident welfare and project timelines over bureaucratic rigidity.

Key implications include:

Societies get cure opportunities instead of facing automatic bid cancellations.
Registrar veto powers are significantly curtailed, reducing delays.
RERA’s time-bound framework is reinforced.
Older buildings—especially D1 and D2 grade—gain quicker access to redevelopment protections.
The ruling narrows the scope of Section 79A, ensuring transparency without crippling projects.

For thousands of families living in ageing buildings, this judgment affirms that administrative technicalities cannot override urgent safety, redevelopment, and housing needs.