1. Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by members of the managing committee of a large cooperative housing society challenging the Cooperative Appellate Court’s order restraining the committee from convening meetings or passing resolutions after a series of resignations reduced its elected strength below the statutory minimum.
The Court held that under Section 154B-19(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, a managing committee must maintain more than two-third of its sanctioned strength as elected members throughout its tenure, not merely at the time of election. Once the elected strength fell to 12 against a sanctioned strength of 19, the committee ceased to be legally constituted, leading to a statutory stalemate requiring regulatory intervention.
2. Facts
The cooperative society had a sanctioned committee strength of 19 seats, of which 18 were filled in elections held in December 2022. One reserved seat remained unfilled due to absence of candidates.
Subsequently, one member resigned in June 2023. On 4 August 2024, an email indicated the resignation of seven members together. While two later submitted individual resignations that were accepted on 21 August 2024, five more members submitted individual resignations on 30 August 2024, which the committee accepted on 29 September 2024.
Although the committee attempted to fill a few vacancies through co-option on 14 September 2024, the elected strength ultimately dropped to 12, well below the statutory threshold of 13 elected members. A dispute was filed before the Cooperative Court, leading to appellate orders restraining committee meetings.
3. Issues
The High Court identified four core questions:
• Whether committee “constitution” is tested only on the date of election or must continue throughout the tenure.
• Whether unfilled reserved seats can be excluded not only for quorum under Section 154B-22 but also for determining committee constitution.
• Whether co-option under Rule 74 can revive a committee that has lost its minimum elected strength.
• Whether the committee remained validly constituted after resignations reduced elected membership to 12.
4. Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners argued that the committee was valid at the time the dispute was filed, with 17 members remaining, and that later events could not be relied upon without amendment of pleadings. They also contended that reserved seats must be excluded when computing strength for quorum and constitution under Section 154B-22, meaning that the committee still met the statutory requirement.
They maintained that resignations are effective only upon acceptance or 30 days thereafter, and that co-option carried out on 14 September 2024 revived the committee’s functional strength. Their central theme was that the Appellate Court wrongly assumed a loss of constitution when the dispute itself did not plead those facts.
5. Respondent’s arguments
The disputant argued that the committee’s elected strength had indisputably dropped to 10–12 members, far below the statutory “more than two-third” threshold of 13. Such a committee could not be considered legally constituted under Section 154B-19(2).
They stressed that co-option cannot cure a collapse of the elected majority, since Rule 74 caps co-option at one-third of the sanctioned strength and cannot replace the democratic mandate. They also emphasised that Section 154B-22 was limited strictly to quorum and only for seats never contested due to lack of candidates — not resignations.
They argued that the petitioners’ own correspondence admitted the reduced strength, and the appellate relief was necessary to prevent an invalid committee from exercising power.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court undertook a detailed reading of Sections 154B-19, 154B-22, and Rule 74. It held that Section 154B-19(2) creates a continuing requirement: a committee must throughout its tenure maintain more than two-third of its sanctioned strength as elected members.
Section 154B-22 serves a narrow purpose — allowing meetings when reserved seats remain vacant due to no candidate being available — and cannot be invoked to justify ignoring vacancies created by resignations.
Rule 74 imposes a strict one-third cap on co-option, ensuring that society governance remains in the hands of elected members. Co-option cannot resurrect a constitution that has already fallen below statutory thresholds.
Thus, once the elected strength dipped below 13, the committee automatically lost its legal existence, triggering statutory stalemate consequences under Sections 77A and 78.
7. Precedent analysis
The Court analysed its earlier ruling in Vijay Lakhi to clarify the meaning of “shall stand constituted” under Section 154B-19. The High Court stated that constitution is a continuing legal condition, not a single event limited to the declaration of results.
It clarified that quorum, once fixed at constitution, does not shift downward because of later vacancies, citing its own observations in Vijay Lakhi. A committee that falls below quorum due to vacancies cannot recalculate quorum on the basis of reduced strength.
The Court harmonised these principles to hold that a committee that drops below more than two-third elected strength suffers a statutory breakdown, independent of quorum considerations.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court emphasised two decisive legal consequences:
- Vacancies arising after resignations cannot be treated as unfilled reserved seats, and Section 154B-22 cannot rescue constitution.
- Once the five individual resignations submitted on 30 August 2024 were accepted on 29 September 2024, the elected strength fell to 12 — below the statutory threshold of 13.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ plea regarding absence of amended pleadings, holding that the resignation dates and acceptance were undisputed and admitted in the society’s own correspondence. Courts may rely on admitted facts even if pleadings do not expressly record them.
The committee, having lost its elected majority below the statutorily mandated level, could not continue to function. The Appellate Court was therefore right to restrain meetings to prevent an invalid body from exercising authority.
9. Conclusion
The High Court upheld the Cooperative Appellate Court’s order and confirmed that the managing committee of the society had ceased to exist in the eyes of law once its elected strength fell below 13.
The writ petitions were dismissed, and the committee remains barred from holding meetings or passing resolutions until fresh elections or lawful reconstitution takes place.
10. Implications
This judgment has wide-ranging consequences for cooperative governance:
• Committee constitution must be maintained continuously, not just at election.
• Mass resignations can instantly trigger statutory stalemate.
• Co-option cannot cure a collapse of elected strength.
• Reserved-seat exemptions under Section 154B-22 apply only to seats never contested.
• Courts can rely on admitted documents even if disputes are not amended.
• Societies must ensure ongoing compliance with the “more than two-third elected” rule to avoid automatic invalidation.
The ruling strengthens democratic accountability and prevents hollow or minority-controlled committees from continuing in office.
CASE LAW REFERENCES (APPLIED IN JUDGMENT)
Vijay Lakhi & Ors. v. Minister of Cooperation (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3657)
Clarified the relationship between constitution, vacancies and quorum. Applied here to reinforce that quorum cannot be recalculated when the elected strength collapses.
Statutory Scheme under Sections 154B-19, 154B-22 and Rule 74
Discussed as binding interpretative framework. The Court emphasised continuous constitution, narrow quorum exemption for reserved seats, and strict co-option limits.
FAQ SECTION
1. What happens when a cooperative housing society’s managing committee loses more than one-third of its elected members?
Under Section 154B-19(2), the committee must always maintain more than two-third elected strength. If elected members drop below this threshold, the committee ceases to be legally constituted and cannot function.
2. Can co-option restore a committee that has fallen below the two-third elected requirement?
No. Rule 74 limits co-option to one-third of total strength. Co-option cannot repair a collapse of the elected majority, nor can it revive a committee that has lost its constitutional identity.
3. Are unfilled reserved seats ignored when determining committee constitution?
Only for quorum, and only when no candidate was available during election. Post-election vacancies due to resignations cannot be treated as unfilled reserved seats.
