A committee member cannot be the developer. A committee member cannot be related to the developer. Paragraph 13(11) of the Government Order of 30 September 2026, No. SGRYO-2026/C.R. 108/14-S, is one sentence and it is absolute. If that bar is crossed, the same order points the responsible office-bearers and committee members to action under Section 79A(3) and Section 78A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
The order is under Section 79A. It supersedes the 4 July 2019 resolution. The clause sits inside the list of points the development agreement must contain.
The bar is on the people who run the society
No committee member or office-bearer of the society shall be a developer or a relative of the developer.
The restriction is on committee members and office-bearers. It is not written against ordinary members who hold no office. A member who is not on the committee can, on the face of the clause, be related to the developer. The moment that person becomes a committee member or office-bearer, the bar applies.
Two things are prohibited. The committee member or office-bearer cannot himself be the developer. And the committee member or office-bearer cannot be a relative of the developer.
The order does not define relative
The clause uses the word and stops. The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act does not supply a general definition of relative that this order adopts. In ordinary use the word covers spouse, parent, child and sibling. How far it reaches cousins, in-laws or more distant relations is not answered in the text.
The order is also silent on the corporate form. If the developer is a company or a partnership and a director or partner is a relative of a committee member, the sentence does not draw the exact line. The prohibition is against a committee member or office-bearer being the developer or a relative of the developer. Societies and registrars have treated a firm or company controlled by a relative as the same conflict. The order itself does not say so in terms.
Why the clause exists
The committee negotiates the terms, shortlists the developer and later oversees the project. If a committee member is the developer, or is related to the developer, that person is on both sides of the bargain. The preamble of the order lists complaints about lack of transparency and prejudice to members. This sentence is one of the contractual bars meant to reduce that risk. The same bar existed in the 2019 resolution this order replaces.
If the bar is crossed, paragraph 16 applies
The clause is one of the points the agreement must carry. Paragraph 16 of the same order says that if the order is violated, or if deception, misappropriation or prejudice to members is found to have been done in collusion in the redevelopment, the responsible office-bearers and committee members are liable to action under Section 79A(3) and Section 78A.
Selecting a developer who is a committee member, or a relative of one, is a direct breach of paragraph 13(11).
Under Section 79A(3), if the Registrar is satisfied that a person responsible for complying with a direction failed without good reason, a committee member can be declared disqualified from being, or continuing as, a member of the committee of any society for six years from the date of the order. A hearing is required, and the federal society is consulted.
Under Section 78A, the Registrar may, after a hearing, supersede the committee and appoint another committee or an administrator for a period not exceeding twelve months under the current text of the Act, or remove the member. A removed member cannot be re-elected, re-co-opted or re-nominated to the committee of any society until the next one term has expired.
Neither section is a fine or custody. Both require a finding and a hearing. The order does not create a new criminal offence. It points to the Registrar’s existing powers. Liable to action is not an automatic disqualification the day the agreement is signed. It is the route the Registrar may take when the bar in paragraph 13(11) is broken.
When the check must be done
The check belongs before the selection meeting. Any shortlisted developer, and every committee member and office-bearer, should be tested against the clause. Once the agreement is signed with a related developer, the breach has already occurred. The clause is not a formality to be cured later.
Also Read: Part 1 of Society Redevelopment Series: Administrator Cannot Decide Society Redevelopment
