Bombay High Court Rules Against Arbitrary Removal of Housing Society Managing Committees

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday observed that the removal of elected managing committees of cooperative housing societies “cannot be done only on suspicion or due to minor procedural lapses” as such an “action affects democratic functioning of the societies”.

The court made this observation while quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar and Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies earlier this year. These orders aimed to remove the 10-member managing committee of a housing society in Kamothe, Navi Mumbai, citing non-submission of records and irregular collection of contributions for repair and painting of the building due to its deteriorated condition.

A single-judge bench of Justice Amit B Borkar passed a verdict on an appeal filed by Jijau Coop. Housing Society Ltd. The society challenged the February 13, 2025 order passed by the Assistant Registrar, which removed the managing committee and appointed an Administrator to handle the day-to-day affairs of the society. The appellate authority of the Joint Registrar upheld this order on August 26, prompting the society to approach the High Court.

The petitioner society, represented by advocates Vivek V Salunke and Manthan A Chaudhari, submitted that members in a general body meeting held in June 2022 decided that each household would contribute Rs. 10,000 per month for five to ten months for repair and painting work. In a subsequent meeting, based on an estimate presented by the structural engineer, it was decided that, after completion of the work, the final contribution amount would be recalculated, and 95 per cent of the members agreed to pay the contributions.

However, the Assistant Registrar, based on a complaint from two members of the society, appointed an authorized officer who gave a report in October 2024. The report stated that the society was not functioning as per the byelaws and the provisions of the Act. Despite the society replying to the show-cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar, stating that it had complied with the regulations, the authority concerned passed an impugned order, which was later upheld by the Joint Registrar.

The petitioner society argued that the authorities failed to consider that the general body had approved the contribution scheme as a temporary arrangement for urgent repairs and that 95 per cent of the members had paid their contributions. Advocate B A Lawate, representing the complainant members, and Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) Dhruti Kapadia for the state supported the impugned orders.

Justice Borkar, in his verdict, noted that Section 78A (Registrar’s power of supersession of committee or removal of member) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 provides a “serious” and “drastic” power which “must be used with caution.” The judge emphasized that the Registrar must look into evidence, record reasons, and “vague complaints without documents cannot form the basis of extreme action.”

“The elected committee (that represents the will of the members) is answerable, but removal is permitted only when the harmful act is established through material on record,” the HC recorded. Justice Borkar noted that the allegations did not show any financial irregularity or that the society had stopped functioning or its administration had collapsed. The judge stated that the complainants approached the Registrar only because they disagreed with the contribution fixed by the general body, the supreme authority of the society.

“Thus, the impugned orders do not satisfy the test of law required for supersession under Section 78A. The drastic action of removing an elected committee cannot rest on incomplete reasons or violations which are minor in nature,” the HC held.