Borivali residents take on political muscle, win big in Bombay HC

On Thursday in a significant ruling on cooperative housing governance and administrative independence the Bombay High Court quashed the disqualification of a Borivli East housing societyrsquos managing committee and ordered restoration of the elected body while directing the Maharashtra government to examine the conduct of cooperative department officials involved in the caseThe 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 KariaThe backgroundThe controversy arose from allegations made by a group of minority society members opposing the redevelopment of the cooperative 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 removalThe deputy registrar subsequently initiated proceedings under Sections 755 and 77A1b1 of the Maharashtra Cooperative 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 202223 and 202324Based 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 memberLack of proper examinationThe court noted that the petitioners had produced official acknowledgements showing that audit rectification reports and accounts had in fact been submitted to the deputy registrarrsquos office in October 2023 and October 2024Justice Borkar observed that the appellate authority merely stated that it ldquoappearedrdquo the reports were not placed before the general body without examining the minutes of meetings or documentary evidence submitted by the petitionersThe court held that such findings demonstrated ldquoabsence of application of mindrdquo particularly because the orders resulted in serious civil consequences including disqualification of elected committee membersPolitical InfluenceA 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 politicianrsquos communication to the deputy registrarReferring 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 pressureThe court observed that although complaints through elected representatives are not uncommon the ldquoclose sequencerdquo of events in the present case raised doubts about whether the registrar acted independentlyJustice Borkar stated that the cumulative circumstances created ldquoa reasonable doubt that the action was influenced by considerations not confined to the provisions of the Actrdquo describing the exercise of power as ldquocolourablerdquoAppointment set asideThe High Court further held that the appointment of administrators could not survive once the original disqualification order was found unsustainableThe court also criticised the urgency cited by authorities to bypass procedural safeguards including the issuance of notice to society members before appointing administratorsThe court noted that one of the complainants was appointed as an authorised officer which raised questions about fairness and neutralityDirections to govtIn one of the most significant parts of the ruling the court directed the state governmentrsquos cooperation department to examine the conduct of the deputy registrar and divisional joint Registrar involved in the matterThe 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 2026Courtrsquos final ordersQuashed the deputy registrarrsquos order dated November 27 2025Set aside the January 20 2026 order appointing administratorsRestored the original managing committeeDirected the immediate handover of society records and accountsOrdered restoration of the societyrsquos bank operationsRejected a request by a respondent to stay the judgmentThe ruling is expected to have wider implications for redevelopment disputes in cooperative housing societies across Maharashtra especially in cases involving allegations of political intervention in administrative proceedingsSociety officebearers sayldquoThe judgment reaffirms our stand that the action was arbitrary and not based on due process Our 50yearold society comprising many senior citizens had faced a temporary setback in its longawaited 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 membersrdquo the managing committee statedAdvocate SpeakThis judgment strongly reaffirms that statutory powers under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act must be exercised independently and free from external influence The Bombay High Court has recognised that democratic functioning of cooperative 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 cooperative societiesrdquo said advocate Bhavin Bhatia who represented the society