The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed this Writ Petition filed by members of a Cooperative Housing Society against the decision of Administrators to change the developer, holding that adequate statutory remedies exist under the Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP802.15.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 802 OF 2016
1. Shailesh B. Parekh & Ors. … Petitioners Vs
1. Shri C.S. Patil & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande i/b Mr. H. Rahman for the Petitioner.
Mr. Girish Godbole, senior counsel i/b Mr. Sumit Kothari for the Respondent No.5.
Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP, for the Respondent No.6.
CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. PATEL, JJ.
TUESDAY, 19TH JANUARY, 2016
P.C. :
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the Administrators or the Board of such nature has no power to take
a policy decision and to effect a change of developer mid-stream is indeed a policy decision.
powers of the Administrators and as set down in several
SRP 1 / 2
WP802.15.doc
principles emerging from the Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions. However, whether in the given facts and circumstances, the decision taken can be termed as a policy decision, much less a major one, whether that was indeed in accordance with law are all disputed issues. We have a Co-operative Housing Society before us who is Respondent No.5. Merely because an Administrator is appointed does not wipe out its legal existence. Equally, we have people before us as petitioners who are styling themselves as members of the respondent No.5. If their existence is independent of the Society in law and as seriously urged, then, we find that against the Cooperative Housing Society there are adequate remedies available in law. If the management and administration of that society is temporarily with the Administrator, nothing prevents the petitioners from proceeding against him as well in law.
3 . In the teeth of all such remedies in the Act, we do not deem
it fit and proper to entertain this Writ Petition. We dismiss the same.
G.S. PATEL, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
SRP 2 / 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Writ Petition entertaining against the decision of Administrators of a Cooperative Housing Society is fit to be entertained.
Whether the dismissal of the Writ Petition in favor of the Respondents is justified.
Shailesh B. Parekh & Ors.
Shri C.S. Patil & Ors.
S.C. Dharmadhikari
G.S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
