MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has rejected a petition questioning the redevelopment of a co-operative housing society in Goregaon West, saying the decision taken by a majority of members in a duly convened society meeting would prevail.
The division bench of justices Suman Shyam and Manjusha Deshpande was hearing a petition filed by Devendra Jain, former chairman of Ramanuj Co-operative Housing Society, questioning the redevelopment of its property, jointly with three other co-operative housing societies in the vicinity through Cunni Realty and Developer Pvt Ltd.
Jain had challenged the redevelopment process, claiming the developer was appointed without inviting public tenders and following the mandatory procedure, in violation of guidelines laid down by the state government on July 4, 2019.
Jain’s counsel, advocate Manoj Upadhyay, submitted that the society was duty-bound to float tenders and claimed that though several developers had shown interest in redevelopment of the society property, they were not allowed to participate in the process.
Senior advocate Mukesh Vashi, on the other hand, pointed out that the petitioner had not placed correct facts before the court – that the project involved joint redevelopment of four housing societies, all located on SV Road in Goregaon West. Of the 391 members of the four housing societies, 323 had consented to the project and accepted the offer by Cunni Realty. Out of the 83 members of Ramanuj CHS, 77 had attended the meeting dated March 23, 2025 and 76 had consented to appoint Cunni Realty, Vashi said.
He added that though some other developers had shown interest in the project, none had submitted any concrete offer. Hence, Cunni Realty, which also happens to be the landlord, was selected in a meeting where the authorised officer of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies was present.
The court accepted Vashi’s argument that the guidelines laid down by the state government were not mandatory, but directory, prescribing procedure or framework for redevelopment.
“The guidelines are intended to be followed to ensure a fair and transparent redevelopment process,” the court said.
“Therefore, every deviation and procedural lapse by itself does not constitute actionable wrong unless it is violative of the object of the directives or some statutory requirement,” the court added and dismissed the petition.