In a significant order reinforcing transparency in co-operative housing societies, the Bombay High Court has upheld the disqualification of the Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer and other managing committee members of Vaishali Nagar Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society Limited. The court confirmed their debarment from contesting, being nominated or co-opted as committee members for five years for failing to supply demanded records to a fellow committee member.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed the writ petition filed by the disqualified office bearers (led by Shashikant M. Ramane and others) and upheld the concurrent orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar and the Hon’ble Minister for Co-operation.
Background
The society’s managing committee was elected for the term 2022–2027. Petitioners held the posts of Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer. Respondent No. 4, Sandesh Waigankar, was also an elected committee member (he had earlier served as Treasurer in the previous term).
Chronological Timeline of Events
October 2023
- 5 October: Respondent No. 4 wrote to the society demanding minutes of all 13 managing committee meetings held between April 2022 and March 2023. He alleged he received WhatsApp intimation for only three meetings. He enclosed a cheque of ₹200 towards copying charges.
- 8 October: He sent another letter demanding the video recording (CD) of the Annual General Meeting held on 24 September 2023, again with a ₹200 cheque.
November–December 2023
- 2 November: After no response, he filed a complaint on the Government’s “Sarkar Sanvad” portal.
- 20 November & 19 December: The Deputy Registrar issued two separate directions to the society to furnish the demanded documents to Respondent No. 4.
- 26 December: The society replied to the Deputy Registrar, levelling allegations against Respondent No. 4 and expressing willingness to hand over documents to the Deputy Registrar’s office for onward transmission.
January–March 2024
- 18 January: Society submitted minutes of the managing committee meetings to the Deputy Registrar’s office.
- 4/13 March: Society submitted a pendrive containing the AGM video recording to the Deputy Registrar’s office and requested it be forwarded to Respondent No. 4.
- 6 February: Deputy Registrar issued a formal direction under Section 154B-27(1).
- 15 March: Show-cause notice issued under Section 154B-27(2).
May 2025 – April 2026: Three-Tier Proceedings
- 6 May 2025: Deputy Registrar passed the disqualification order against the petitioners under Section 154B-23(1)(iii) read with Section 154B-8(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. He also appointed an Administrator (later set aside).
- 24 June 2025: Joint Registrar (SRA/MHADA) partly allowed the appeal — upheld the disqualification but set aside the Administrator’s appointment.
- 21 April 2026: Hon’ble Minister (Co-operation) dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners, upholding the disqualification.
May–July 2026: Bombay High Court
- 5 May 2026: High Court granted ad-interim stay on the disqualification order.
- 1 July 2026: Justice Sandeep V. Marne pronounced the final judgment dismissing the writ petition. The court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the three authorities.
Respondent No. 4 finally received the documents much later — the AGM video/pendrive on 21 June 2024 (after 263 days) and the meeting minutes on 15 October 2024 (after 377 days).
Key Legal Provisions Explained
The disqualification was ordered under Section 154B-23(1)(iii) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Section 154B-8(2) casts a mandatory duty on the society:
“A society shall furnish to a Member, on request in writing and on payment of such fees … the copies of any documents mentioned in sub-section (1) within forty-five days from the date of payment of such fees…”
Documents listed in sub-section (1) include minutes of committee meetings.
Section 154B-23 provides that if a committee member is held responsible for violation of Section 154B-8(2), he/she:
- Immediately ceases to be a committee member (seat becomes vacant).
- Is debarred from being elected, nominated, appointed or co-opted as a committee member for five years.
The High Court observed that sending cheques along with the written requests was sufficient compliance by the member. The society’s failure to encash the cheques or supply documents directly within the statutory 45-day period, despite repeated directions from the Deputy Registrar, amounted to deliberate non-compliance. Vague claims that the member “refused to accept” the documents were not supported by evidence.
The court distinguished this case from minor or technical delays, noting it involved “deliberate refusal” and lack of bona fides. While non-supply of AGM video recording alone may not trigger disqualification (as held in another recent judgment), non-supply of managing committee meeting minutes clearly does.
Court’s Key Observations
- The legislative intent behind Section 154B-8 is to ensure transparency in the affairs of co-operative societies.
- Mere capacity as a committee member does not take away a person’s right as an ordinary member to demand records.
- Disqualification is not automatic; it follows a proper inquiry where the defaulting members get an opportunity to defend themselves (which happened here).
- Substantial compliance can sometimes save a party, but no such compliance was found in this case.
Implications for Housing Societies and Members
This judgment sends a strong message to managing committees across Maharashtra: Society records belong to the members, not to the office bearers. Hiding or delaying minutes of meetings — especially when internal decisions (such as changes in cash-handling limits or agenda items) are involved — can invite severe personal consequences, including loss of office and a five-year ban.
For ordinary flat owners and society members, the order strengthens their right to obtain copies of records promptly. It also highlights the importance of using the Sarkar Sanvad portal and approaching the Deputy Registrar when requests are ignored.
The case underscores that internal disputes and lack of transparency in housing societies can lead to administrative intervention and prolonged litigation, ultimately affecting all residents.
