The Bombay high court has once again ruled that members of a co-operative housing society who are in minority cannot obstruct a redevelopment project and must abide by the majority decision of the society, unless they show that here is some prejudice caused to them or a fraud has been committed.
The decision came in a judgement pronounced on Friday by Justice S J Kathawala while giving thumbs up to a petition filed by the Godi Kamgar CHS (Madhuvan) in Andheri (W) and Bharat Infrastructure and Engineering Ltd, a developer challenging a March 2008 order passed by the Maharashtra co- operative appellate court.
The HC ruling, the detailed copy of which will be available later, also made it clear with a direction to the society that it must allot flats to about 20- odd minority members out of the 172 members across seven buildings in the society which were constructed in 1965. The allotment has to be made with a week as the new 18-storey tower has already been constructed. If they refuse to vacate their old premises then the co-operative society is empowered to take possession of flats, if necessary with police help.
The judgement on the issue, whether minority members in a co-operative society can obstruct redevelopment project or not, is significant because it essentially comes on a petition filed by the co-operative society which had taken the proper route of going to a co-operative court first. The developer, who was also a petitioner before the HC but not before the co-operative court, said that he has already spent over Rs. 20 crore in the reconstruction that began with a bhoomipujan in 2004, but the main plea was that the “majority decision of the society by 153 members must hold good” over the disputing minority.
The society through its lawyer Mukesh Vashi also pointed before the HC that the new building was already granted an OC in 2007. The redevelopment project was knocked about in various courts. The minority members had moved the city civil court earlier for an injunction to stop the development work but were not granted any relief and they also failed to get any reprieve in the cooperative courts.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
The Secretary of the society is not a member(his wife is a member).
So also members attending general body meeting are only representatives of members.
If redevelopment is agreed in such meeting, can it not be challenged by minority members?