Bombay High Court Upholds Five-Year Disqualification of Co-operative Housing Society Managing Committee for Prolonged Non-Supply of Meeting Minutes
Background and Overview
The Bombay High Court recently pronounced judgment in two connected writ petitions filed by members of the Managing Committee of Brahma Suncity Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., challenging their disqualification and the consequential appointment of an administrator over the Society. The Court dismissed both petitions and confirmed the impugned orders, delivering a significant ruling on the interplay between a member's statutory right to access Society records and the accountability of those entrusted with managing co-operative institutions under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
The case arose from a series of events triggered when a Society member sought copies of minutes of Managing Committee meetings held from October 2022 onwards. What followed was a prolonged period of inaction, regulatory intervention, and ultimately, disqualification of the entire Managing Committee for a period of five years.
Factual Matrix
The petitioners were elected as Managing Committee members of the Society on 20 November 2022. Shortly thereafter, respondent No. 4 initiated requests for copies of Managing Committee meeting minutes from October 2022 by email dated 18 January 2023. This request was neither responded to adequately nor were the applicable copy charges communicated.
The member pursued the matter persistently through emails sent on 29 January 2023, 15 February 2023, 23 February 2023, and 25 February 2023, each time affirming readiness to pay whatever fees were applicable. On 23 February 2023, the District Deputy Registrar, Pune intervened and directed the Society to furnish the requested documents upon receipt of prescribed fees within forty-five days of payment.
Despite this regulatory direction, the Society remained unresponsive. Further representations were made on 10 March 2023 and 30 March 2023. On 11 April 2023, the member lodged a formal grievance with the District Deputy Registrar. This prompted a more decisive order on 12 April 2023 under Section 154B-27(1), directing the Society to supply the documents within seven days and to submit a compliance report. The implied deadline was therefore 19 April 2023.
The Society's first communication regarding copy charges came only on 10 May 2023 — nearly four months after the initial request. The member deposited Rs. 307 in copy charges on the same day. Copies of the Managing Committee minutes were eventually supplied on 12 May 2023, but only up to February 2023, leaving minutes from March 2023 onwards unsupplied.
Parallel proceedings had commenced by this stage. Respondents 4 to 6 filed a complaint on 26 April 2023 alleging breach of the Society's bye-laws. A show-cause notice was issued on 28 April 2023 under Section 154B-23(3). The petitioners filed their reply on 15 May 2023. On 26 May 2023, an order was passed disqualifying the petitioners under Section 154B-23(3) and debarring them from contesting Society elections for five years. A further order dated 29 May 2023 under Section 77A(1) appointed an administrator over the Society.
The petitioners subsequently filed a revision application on 12 June 2023, which was dismissed on 27 October 2023 along with their appeal. The present writ petitions were filed on 3 November 2023. This Court granted interim relief on 30 November 2023, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 10 April 2024.
Arguments Advanced by the Parties
Petitioners' Contentions
The petitioners, through their counsel, argued that the obligation to supply document copies under Section 154B-8 is conditional upon prior payment of prescribed fees. Since respondent No. 4 made payment only on 10 May 2023 and copies were supplied within two days on 12 May 2023, the Managing Committee had acted within the forty-five-day window permitted by the statute.
It was further submitted that Section 154B-27 expressly provides for a monetary penalty of Rs. 5,000 as the prescribed consequence for non-supply of documents. The petitioners argued that this specific penal provision operated as the exclusive remedy for the alleged default, and therefore, the concurrent invocation of Section 154B-23 for disqualification — along with the consequential order of supersession under Section 77A(1) — was legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.