MUMBAI: Cooperative housing societies no longer need a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the registrar of cooperative societies when redeveloping their old buildings, as per a state circular issued on Tuesday.
State cooperation commissioner Deepak Taware said, “We issued the circular as per high court guidelines and this will bring transparency in the redevelopment (of housing societies).”
The high court’s order stems from a case between members of the Bandra Nisha Cooperative Housing Society and the deputy registrar of cooperative societies, H-West Ward. Society members had approached the court when the redevelopment of their property was stalled due to a lack of permissions from the registrar. In an October 17 order, the court held that the role of the registrar is only to supervise redevelopment.
The court held that as per the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and an additional Government Resolution regarding the matter from 2019, there is no provision authorising the registrar to grant a “No Objection” (NOC) for the redevelopment of a cooperative housing society. “The registrar has no authority to approve or permit redevelopment,” read the circular.
The high court clearly stated that the general body of the cooperative housing society is the supreme decision-making authority in the redevelopment process. “If any member of the society feels that the society has violated law, rules, or bye-laws during the redevelopment process, then, in such a situation, the appropriate legal remedy is to approach the Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960,” the court said.
As per the court order, a directive was sent to all officers of the cooperation department, highlighting that the registrar does not have the power to review, modify, or reject any decision taken by the general body of the society.
The state directive issued by Taware says that after receiving a redevelopment proposal from a housing society, the deputy registrar will appoint an authorised officer to conduct a special general body meeting within 14 days. The registrar’s role is to be present at that meeting where the developer for the project is selected. The circular reads that if the registrar fails to appoint an authorized officer within the prescribed time or refuses to do so, they will be liable for disciplinary action.
The court order had said, “The authorised officer is meant to observe the proceedings, confirm that the quorum (minimum number of people) is met, and ensure that the minutes, voting, and resolutions are properly recorded.”
The November 4 circular adds that the society must submit copies of the notice, agenda, members’ consent letters, minutes of the meeting, and video recording of the special general body convened for the developer’s selection to the registrar’s office within 15 days for their official records.
After that if any member has an objection or disagreement regarding decisions taken by the special general body, they can directly approach the cooperative court. “Registrars shall not undertake any review, modification, or veto (rejection) of the redevelopment decisions taken in the general body meetings of societies,” the circular read.
Advocate Shreeprasad Parab, an expert in cooperation laws said, “The circular will prove highly beneficial not only for redevelopment projects but also for self-redevelopment initiatives across the state.” Parab added that this move removes a major administrative hurdle that was often used to stall or delay projects.
“This is a significant step towards strengthening the autonomy of cooperative housing societies, reducing scope for bureaucratic interference, and accelerating self-redevelopment ventures that are member-led and do not involve developers,” he added. Parab said the directive strengthens both democratic functioning and execution capacity of societies, encouraging thousands of stagnant projects to move ahead without delay.
According to the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (MGP), a non-profit cooperative for consumer rights, the registrars would often ask for ₹15,000 to ₹50,000 per flat for their permissions. Registrars would even interfere with the development by trying to pick a developer of their choice.