Ten members of a housing society of 565 sought relief against the developer and their own society over transit rent. The court held the petition not maintainable as minority members are bound by majority decisions; grievances were private, not public law matters. Petition rejected.
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.
918-OSWP-1483-2024.DOC
Amol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1483 OF 2024
Pranali Prakash Chaudhari …Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors …Respondents
Mr S Bharucha , with Jamshed Master, i/b, Mangesh D Chavan, for the Petitioner.
Mr Suraj Gupte , AGP , for the Respondent-State.
Ms Pooja Yadav , for the Respondent-BMC.
Ms Sayli Apte , with Shreya Shah, i/b, PG Lad, for Respondents Nos 2, 3-MHADA.
Mr Mayur Khandeparkar , (online) with Sanjeel Kadam, i/b, Kadam & Co, for Respondent No 5.
CORAM G.S. Patel & Kamal Khata, JJ. DATED: 8th April 2024
AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV
Digitally signed by AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Date: 2024.04.10 10:25:49 +0530
PC:-
1. The law does not permit such a Petition to be maintained. There is no question of permitting a withdrawal of a Petition that ought never to have been filed. It is not maintainable. Ten members of a society of 565 members come and make a grievance. The other 555 members do not join in this complaint. We are asked to believe that these 10 members can secede from the Society of which they are members, virtually raise a flag of independence, and proceed
Page 1 of 3 8th April 2024
918-OSWP-1483-2024.DOC
against the developer and against a society, i.e., against the interests of other members. That law has been settled for several decades. These individual members are bound by the decisions of the society taken by a majority. We recently reiterated it in the case of Deepak Prabhakar Thakoor & Ors v MHADA & Ors .1 If they do not like those decisions of the Society, their remedies lie elsewhere. It is undeniable is that none of the other 555 members of the society are supporting the cause of these 10 Petitioners.
2. The grievance about non-payment of transit rent is ex facie absurd. The Petitioners have simply not collected the cheques. They have signed letters on the same basis as all other tenants. Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreements were signed a long time ago. It is also not disputed that the developer, 5th Respondent is not just a developer, but is also an owner of the property in question.
3. We are making no observation and passing no directions in regard to how these Petitioners must be treated going forward or what arrangements need to be made in regard to the amounts that were available to them but which they did not collect. That is not, in any case, a matter of public law. It is purely a private arrangement between some members of the 6th Respondent society and the 5th Respondent owner/developer.
4. And of course there is the factor that the Petitioners offer no form of security for any loss or prejudice that may be caused to the
1 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2234
Page 2 of 3 8th April 2024
918-OSWP-1483-2024.DOC
555 members of their own Society (even leaving the prejudice to the owner/developer).
5. The Petition is rejected. There will be no order as to costs.
(Kamal Khata, J)
(G. S. Patel, J)
Page 3 of 3 8th April 2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether ten minority members of a 565-member society can maintain a writ petition against the society, developer and other members without joining the majority.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deepak Prabhakar Thakoor & Ors v MHADA & OrsRelied on¶1
2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2234 · Who else cites this
Pranali Prakash Chaudhari
The State of Maharashtra
G.S. Patel
Kamal Khata
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
