1. Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court quashed three concurrent orders that had approved and upheld the expulsion of five members from a cooperative housing society, holding that the decision-making process suffered from non-application of mind, absence of proper reasoning, and failure to consider relevant material. The Court restored the petitioners to the society’s membership register and directed immediate reinstatement of all membership rights. It also rejected the society’s oral request to stay the order, emphasising that the reasons recorded in the judgment did not justify any interim protection to the expulsion decision.
2. Facts
The dispute arose within a cooperative housing society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioners were flat owners and society members who, between 2017 and 2021, repeatedly questioned the functioning of the office-bearers. They raised grievances before multiple statutory and administrative fora, including the cooperative department authorities, the Sub-Registrar’s office, appellate forums, and the municipal corporation. According to the society, a complaint signed by several members was received in May 2021 seeking their expulsion for allegedly making false and defamatory complaints that harmed the society’s reputation and obstructed day-to-day working.
A show-cause notice under Section 35 was issued in September 2023, informing the petitioners that a Special General Meeting would be convened in October 2023 to consider expulsion. The petitioners submitted an interim reply and sought documents supporting the accusations. In the October 2023 Special General Meeting, the petitioners were given an opportunity to explain their stand, after which a resolution expelling them was passed by the required three-fourths majority of those present and voting. The society then sought statutory approval from the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar approved the expulsion in June 2024, the Divisional Joint Registrar dismissed the appeal in November 2024, and the revisional authority dismissed further challenge in August 2025. These concurrent orders led to the writ petition before the High Court.
3. Issues
The High Court framed the controversy around fairness, evidence, and reasoning. It asked whether the petitioners were afforded a fair and reasoned decision before deprivation of membership; whether the decisive findings were supported by material; and whether the statutory authorities applied their minds to the evidence placed by the petitioners. Closely linked was the legal issue of what constitutes “acts detrimental to the interest of the society” under Section 35, especially where the alleged misconduct consists largely of members approaching statutory authorities, courts, police, and auditors. Another key issue was the standard of reasoning required from quasi-judicial authorities when expulsion affects civil and proprietary interests.
4. Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioners contended that the show-cause notice listed nine specific charges, many relating to their complaints and proceedings before different fora: objections concerning construction activities, deemed conveyance and mutation issues, generator installation expenditure, election disputes, proceedings under Section 91, police complaints, complaints to statutory and individual auditors, and revenue record objections. They argued that their police complaints were not treated as false; rather, police advised them that the dispute appeared civil and that they should approach the competent forum, undermining the allegation of malicious conduct. They also asserted that on the generator issue, other members supported their position, yet authorities wrongly attributed the entire grievance to them as misconduct. On audit-related complaints, they pointed out that auditors found substance in two out of four issues raised, but the authorities still labelled their conduct frivolous. Overall, the petitioners argued that the Deputy Registrar, appellate authority, and revisional authority failed to examine documentary material and produced non-speaking orders that simply reproduced submissions without analysing evidence or separately assessing charges against each petitioner. They emphasised that expulsion is drastic, affecting proprietary interests and implicating constitutional protection of property rights, requiring special or compelling circumstances that were absent here.
5. Respondent’s arguments
The society defended the expulsion as a last resort, claiming the petitioners’ repeated complaints targeted the managing committee and society, compelling it to incur unnecessary legal expenses as it was arrayed as a party in multiple proceedings. It submitted that the charges were self-explanatory, the expulsion resolution was passed by the requisite three-fourths majority, and the procedure under Section 35 read with the relevant Rules was followed. The society also stressed that the petitioners objected to deemed conveyance and approached revenue authorities to restrain entries in the record, thereby obstructing implementation of deemed conveyance—a collective benefit—amounting to conduct detrimental to the society. On this footing, it sought dismissal of the writ petition and urged that the statutory framework had been complied with in both procedure and outcome.
6. Analysis of the law
The judgment treats Section 35 as conferring a drastic power with grave civil consequences in cooperative housing society disputes. The Court emphasised that expulsion does not merely remove voting rights; it threatens the member’s status in the society governing the residential premises and directly affects proprietary interest in the flat. This led the Court to adopt a narrow construction of “acts detrimental to the interest of the society,” holding it cannot be stretched to cover every disagreement, complaint, or dispute with the managing committee.
The Court underscored that cooperative housing society governance must allow members to question decisions affecting property, money, and rights. Lawful steps to assert legal remedies—complaints to authorities, recourse to courts, and participation in statutory processes—are integral to democratic functioning within cooperative institutions. The Court warned of a chilling effect if lawful litigation or complaints become grounds for expulsion: members would hesitate to raise genuine grievances, accountability would weaken, and managing committees would operate without effective oversight.
On adjudicatory standards, the Court reiterated that quasi-judicial orders must contain reasons, linking evidence to conclusions. Mere reproduction of rival submissions and a short conclusion does not satisfy the duty to decide. Crucially, where expulsion affects individual membership and individual property-linked rights, authorities must assess charges petitioner-wise and act-wise; collective conclusions without charge-wise examination fail the legal standard.
7. Precedent analysis
The petitioners relied on a recent Bombay High Court ruling that treated expulsion from a cooperative society as requiring special and compelling circumstances and cautioned against using Section 35 to suppress dissent. They also cited a Gujarat High Court decision reinforcing that expulsion should not be based on ordinary disputes or grievance-raising unless the conduct is truly prejudicial to the society’s functioning. While the present judgment is anchored primarily in statutory interpretation and administrative law principles—reasoned orders, consideration of relevant material, and fairness—it aligns with this broader judicial trend: expulsion is exceptional, and “acts detrimental” must be proved with clear material showing harm beyond legitimate assertion of rights.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court closely examined the nature of the nine categories of allegations and found that many related to steps taken before statutory authorities and courts. Regarding police complaints, it noted that police did not label them false or mischievous; instead, they indicated the dispute was civil and advised recourse to a competent forum. This, the Court held, made it difficult to brand the act of approaching police as malicious. It added an important principle: mere recourse to a forum that later appears inappropriate cannot establish mala fides; otherwise, every litigant choosing a wrong forum would risk punishment, which is not the scheme of the Act.
On auditor complaints, the Court highlighted that auditors found substance in two out of four points and noted matters requiring attention. Yet the authorities dismissed the entire conduct as frivolous without dealing with the auditors’ findings. Because an auditor performs a statutory function, the adjudicating authority must engage with such observations by giving reasons—agreeing or disagreeing. Silence indicated the evidence was not properly evaluated, rendering the finding perverse.
The Court then addressed the structural defect: the Deputy Registrar, appellate authority, and Ministerial revisional authority did not meaningfully discuss documents produced by the petitioners. The orders reflected an approach where the society’s allegations were accepted as established facts without scrutiny of the petitioners’ explanation, amounting to non-application of mind. The Court also faulted the absence of distinct analysis of individual charges against each petitioner, noting that individual culpability cannot be presumed.
Even on merits, the Court held that the charges did not disclose special or compelling circumstances warranting expulsion. It clarified that Section 35 must be confined to conduct clearly destructive of collective interest—examples offered included fraud, misappropriation, violence, persistent obstruction of essential services, or conduct making the society’s functioning practically impossible. Mere dissent, complaint-making, and lawful litigation do not meet this threshold.
The Court’s strongest articulation was on access to justice: it observed that in a democratic system, access to justice is a right, and a person cannot be punished merely for approaching courts or statutory authorities. If litigation is frivolous, the forum can reject it or impose costs, but it is not for the opposite party—especially office-bearers who are themselves parties to disputes—to punish the complainant through expulsion. Treating such conduct as “defamation” or “obstruction” would suppress oversight and democratic accountability.
On the deemed conveyance objection, the Court accepted that deemed conveyance is important for a society, but held that members are not precluded from questioning the manner in which it is processed. The record did not show fabrication or unlawful acts to prevent implementation; it showed objections before revenue authorities. The Court ruled that such objections, absent proof of malicious intent or substantial injury to society functioning, cannot be equated with sabotage and therefore cannot justify expulsion under Section 35.
Finally, the Court rejected the society’s reliance on procedural compliance and majority vote as sufficient. Procedure is necessary, but it does not cure defects in reasoning; majority support cannot validate an arbitrary outcome reached without proper evaluation of evidence.
9. Conclusion
The High Court concluded that the impugned orders approving and upholding expulsion were vitiated by non-application of mind, lack of reasons, and failure to consider relevant material, and that even the alleged acts did not amount to “acts detrimental to the interest of the society” under Section 35 when they largely comprised lawful recourse to remedies. It therefore quashed the orders and restored the petitioners’ membership with immediate effect, refusing any stay.
10. Implications
This ruling reinforces a high threshold for expulsion from cooperative housing society membership under Section 35. It signals that housing society expulsion cannot be used as a tool to silence dissent, punish grievance-raising, or retaliate against members who approach courts, statutory authorities, police, or auditors. The judgment also strengthens administrative law safeguards in cooperative disputes: Deputy Registrars and higher authorities must issue speaking, reasoned orders, evaluate documentary material, and conduct petitioner-wise analysis when individual rights are curtailed. For housing societies, the message is clear: majority resolutions and procedural formalities will not survive judicial scrutiny if the substantive test of “acts detrimental” is not met and if the reasoning process is perfunctory.
Case-law references (as discussed in the judgment)
- Bombay High Court decision (6 November 2025) on expulsion from cooperative society: Treated expulsion as a drastic remedy requiring special and compelling circumstances, cautioning against equating grievance-raising with conduct detrimental to the society. The present Court used this reasoning framework to underline that expulsion affects serious civil and property-linked rights and must be sparingly invoked.
- Gujarat High Court decision reported in (2008) 4 Gujarat Law Reporter 2772: Emphasised that expulsion cannot rest on ordinary disputes and should be supported by conduct truly prejudicial to society functioning. The present Court relied on this persuasive approach to keep “acts detrimental” within narrow bounds and to resist a reading that penalises lawful remedies.
FAQs
Q1. Can a cooperative housing society expel a member for filing complaints or cases against the managing committee?
A society cannot treat lawful complaints or litigation, by itself, as “acts detrimental to the interest of the society” under Section 35. Courts have cautioned that expulsion is a drastic power and cannot be used to curb legitimate dissent or access to justice.
Q2. What does “acts detrimental to the interest of the society” mean under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act?
The expression is not meant to cover every disagreement or grievance. It is generally confined to conduct clearly destructive of the collective interest or functioning of the society, and must be supported by clear and convincing material.
Q3. What if the society followed procedure and passed an expulsion resolution by majority—will courts still interfere?
Yes. Procedural compliance and majority support are necessary but not sufficient. Authorities must give reasoned, speaking orders and evaluate evidence. Courts can set aside expulsion if the decision shows non-application of mind or lacks proper reasoning.