The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a sole dissenting member of a housing society challenging its redevelopment process, and in doing so reaffirmed that the Government Resolution (GR) of July 2019 prescribing redevelopment guidelines under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is directive in nature and not mandatory. The petitioner contended that the society’s appointment of a developer without inviting tenders violated the 2019 GR as well as the statutory principles, and sought to quash the redevelopment scheme. The Court rejected this challenge, holding that the guidelines are meant to guide a fair and transparent process but deviations from them do not ipso facto invalidate the entire redevelopment unless a statutory requirement is breached or the objective of the guidelines is frustrated.
In its reasoning, the Court observed that the GR was intended to serve as a broad framework for best practices and procedural safeguards, and many of its clauses employ language such as “should” rather than “must” or “shall.” The Court noted that no consequence is supplied in the GR itself for non-compliance. The Court reaffirmed precedents where it had held that these guidelines are directory rather than binding. It held that where a majority decision in a properly convened general body meeting is consistent with material compliance—notice, participation, disclosure—such a decision will prevail over technical non-compliances unless there is fraud, misrepresentation, or substantive prejudice shown.
In rejecting the petitioner’s dissent, the Court emphasized that a lone dissenting member cannot stall redevelopment if the majority, in a lawful meeting attended by the authorised officer, approved the scheme and the Deputy Registrar issued a No Objection Certificate. The Court held that the minority cannot obstruct the will of the majority, especially where no prima facie flaw is made out. It referred to earlier rulings in which non-mandatory procedural lapses were held insufficient to invalidate redevelopment steps.
By its decision, the High Court clarified that the 2019 GR serves as guideline directions, not hard mandates, and that redevelopment decisions made by majority members in proper meetings should not be derailed solely on grounds of minor deviations from the GR. The judgment strengthens the principle that societies exercising democratic authority cannot be easily thwarted by isolated objections when the process broadly adheres to transparency and fairness.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.