In a significant verdict emphasizing transparency and accountability within cooperative housing societies, the Bombay High Court has upheld the disqualification of the entire managing committee of a Pune-based society for five years. The court ruled that withholding information sought by members, despite specific orders from the registrar, renders committee members unfit to hold positions of trust.
The single-judge bench of Justice Amit Borkar dismissed the petition filed by eleven members of the managing committee of the Brahma Suncity Co-operative Housing Society, located in Wadgaon Sheri, Pune. The petitioners had challenged the orders passed by the District Deputy Registrar (DDR) of Co-operative Societies, Pune, which were subsequently confirmed by the Divisional Joint Registrar.
The controversy began when three members of the housing society, including one Rajiv Gupta, formally requested access to the minutes of the managing committee’s meetings and other related documents. Despite repeated requests and reminders starting from January 18, 2023, the committee failed to provide the sought information.
Aggrieved by the lack of response, the members approached the District Deputy Registrar (DDR). Acting on their complaint, the DDR passed an order in April 2023, directing the managing committee to furnish the requested documents to the complainants upon payment of the necessary fees.
However, following continued non-compliance, the DDR in May 2023 issued an order disqualifying the committee members for a period of five years and appointing an administrator to manage the society’s affairs. The committee members appealed this decision before the Divisional Joint Registrar, who rejected their plea, prompting them to move the High Court.
The petitioners (the disqualified committee members) argued that their disqualification was unwarranted and disproportionate. Their primary contention was technical: they claimed that their legal obligation to provide the documents only commenced on May 10, 2023, the date when the members paid the requisite photocopying fees of ₹370.
The committee argued that since they provided the information just two days after the fees were paid, there was no deliberate delay or non-compliance. They further challenged the appointment of an administrator to the society.
Justice Amit Borkar refused to accept the technical defense raised by the petitioners. The Court scrutinized the timeline of events, noting that the members had been demanding the information since January 2023 and had explicitly expressed their willingness to pay the necessary charges.
The Court observed:
- Unexplained Delay: The Bench noted that there was a “long and unexplained delay” from January to May. The committee had failed to respond to the initial pleas and subsequently ignored the DDR’s specific direction dated April 12, 2023.
- Partial Compliance: The Court highlighted that even after the delay, the committee only provided partial information on May 12, and this was done only after the registrar had issued a show-cause notice.
Justice Borkar remarked, “The dates speak for themselves,” expressing strong disapproval of the committee’s evasive approach.
The High Court laid down a crucial observation regarding the role of managing committees. The judgment underscored that a co-operative housing society functions through its committee, whose members hold a “position of trust” as they deal with the money, property, and day-to-day affairs of the society.
Referring to Section 154B-8 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the Court held that when a member blocks a lawful right to information or hides documents, they violate this trust.
“The law, therefore, treats such a person as unfit to remain on the committee,” the Court stated, confirming that the disqualification of the entire panel was justified.
In dismissing the petition, the High Court also took into account an aggravating factor: the committee members had already faced proceedings where they were held responsible for causing financial loss to the society, with a recovery certificate under Section 88 already issued against them.
The High Court’s ruling affirms the May 2023 order of the District Deputy Registrar, maintaining the five-year disqualification and the appointment of an administrator to the Brahma Suncity Co-operative Housing Society.
