08 May,2026 09:58 AM IST | Mumbai | Vinod Kumar Menon
Nensey Cottage Co-operative Housing Society Limited in Borivili East. PICS/BY SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT
On Thursday, in a significant ruling on co-operative housing governance and administrative independence, the Bombay High Court quashed the disqualification of a Borivli East housing society's managing committee and ordered restoration of the elected body, while directing the Maharashtra government to examine the conduct of co-operative department officials involved in the case.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Amit Borkar, in connection with a writ petition filed by Vishal T Lathia and other members of Nensey Cottage CHS Ltd. The society was represented by counsel Amogh Singh, with advocates Bhavin Bhatia and Nirav Karia.
The controversy arose from allegations made by a group of minority society members opposing the redevelopment of the co-operative housing society. According to the petitioners, certain members approached a local Member of Legislative Council (MLC), alleging irregularities by the managing committee and seeking its removal.
The deputy registrar subsequently initiated proceedings under Sections 75(5) and 77A(1)(b-1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, alleging that the committee failed to place audit rectification reports and annual accounts before the general body meetings for the financial years 2022-23 and 2023-24.
Based on these allegations, the committee members were disqualified for two years, later reduced to six months by the appellate authority, and a board of administrators was appointed to run the society. Interestingly, a complainant was made a board member.
The court noted that the petitioners had produced official acknowledgements showing that audit rectification reports and accounts had in fact been submitted to the deputy registrar's office in October 2023 and October 2024.
Justice Borkar observed that the appellate authority merely stated that it "appeared" the reports were not placed before the general body, without examining the minutes of meetings or documentary evidence submitted by the petitioners.
The court held that such findings demonstrated "absence of application of mind," particularly because the orders resulted in serious civil consequences, including disqualification of elected committee members.
A major aspect of the judgment focused on allegations of political interference. The petitioners argued that the proceedings began after a complaint was routed through an MLC and that statutory action followed immediately after the politician's communication to the deputy registrar.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in the State of MP v Sanjay Nagayach (2013), the High Court emphasised that statutory authorities must act independently and not under external influence or political pressure.
The court observed that although complaints through elected representatives are not uncommon, the "close sequence" of events in the present case raised doubts about whether the registrar acted independently.
Justice Borkar stated that the cumulative circumstances created "a reasonable doubt that the action was influenced by considerations not confined to the provisions of the Act," describing the exercise of power as "colourable."
The High Court further held that the appointment of administrators could not survive once the original disqualification order was found unsustainable.
The court also criticised the urgency cited by authorities to bypass procedural safeguards, including the issuance of notice to society members before appointing administrators.
The court noted that one of the complainants was appointed as an authorised officer, which raised questions about fairness and neutrality.
In one of the most significant parts of the ruling, the court directed the state government's co-operation department to examine the conduct of the deputy registrar and divisional joint Registrar involved in the matter.
The state government has been ordered to seek explanations from the officers and decide within three months whether disciplinary action is warranted. A compliance affidavit is to be filed before the High Court by August 10, 2026.
Quashed the deputy registrar's order dated November 27, 2025
Set aside the January 20, 2026 order appointing administrators
Restored the original managing committee
Directed the immediate handover of society records and accounts
Ordered restoration of the society's bank operations
Rejected a request by a respondent to stay the judgment
The ruling is expected to have wider implications for redevelopment disputes in co-operative housing societies across Maharashtra, especially in cases involving allegations of political intervention in administrative proceedings.
"The judgment reaffirms our stand that the action was arbitrary and not based on due process. Our 50-year-old society, comprising many senior citizens, had faced a temporary setback in its long-awaited redevelopment by reputed builders due to this action. We are thankful that justice has prevailed and remain committed to taking the redevelopment process forward transparently and in the larger interest of all members," the managing committee stated.
"This judgment strongly reaffirms that statutory powers under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act must be exercised independently and free from external influence. The Bombay High Court has recognised that democratic functioning of co-operative societies and the will of the overwhelming majority cannot be derailed by a minority faction through extraneous intervention, reinforcing the rule of law and protection of democratic governance in co-operative societies," said advocate Bhavin Bhatia, who represented the society.
