Bombay High Court Upholds Five-Year Disqualification of Housing Society Committee Members for Deliberately Withholding Committee Meeting Minutes Despite Repeated Requests
Bombay High Court Upholds Five-Year Disqualification of Housing Society Committee Members for Deliberately Withholding Meeting Minutes
Facts
Vaishali Nagar Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society Limited is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Its managing committee was elected for the term 2022–2027. The petitioners were elected as committee members, with Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 serving as Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer respectively. Respondent No. 4 was also an elected committee member and had earlier served as Treasurer during the previous term.
On 5 October 2023, Respondent No. 4 requested copies of the attendance records and minutes of 13 managing committee meetings allegedly held between 1 April 2022 and 31 March 2023. He claimed that he had been informed about only three meetings. He enclosed a cheque of ₹200 towards copying charges.
On 8 October 2023, he separately requested a CD containing the video recording of the Annual General Meeting held on 24 September 2023 and again enclosed a cheque of ₹200.
As the documents were not supplied, Respondent No. 4 lodged a complaint on the Maharashtra Government portal on 2 November 2023. The Deputy Registrar directed the society on 20 November and again on 19 December 2023 to furnish the requested documents.
The petitioners claimed that the minutes were submitted to the Deputy Registrar’s office on 18 January 2024 and that a pen drive containing the AGM recording was submitted on 13 March 2024, with a request that the Deputy Registrar forward the material to Respondent No. 4.
However, Respondent No. 4 actually received the AGM recording only on 21 June 2024 and the managing committee minutes on 15 October 2024—approximately 263 days and 377 days respectively after making the requests.
On 6 May 2025, the Deputy Registrar held the petitioners responsible for non-compliance with Section 154B-8(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and disqualified them as committee members. They were also barred for five years from being appointed, nominated, elected or co-opted to the committee. The Deputy Registrar additionally appointed an Administrator.
The Joint Registrar maintained the disqualification but set aside the appointment of the Administrator. The Minister for Co-operation dismissed the petitioners’ revision and affirmed the disqualification.
The petitioners then approached the Bombay High Court challenging the concurrent findings of the three authorities.
Issues
- Whether the petitioners had violated Section 154B-8(2) by failing to supply the requested documents within 45 days.
- Whether the copying charges could be treated as unpaid merely because the society chose not to deposit or encash the cheques submitted by Respondent No. 4.
- Whether supplying the documents belatedly to the Deputy Registrar’s office amounted to substantial compliance.
- Whether a managing committee member could invoke the rights available to an ordinary society member to inspect and obtain society records.
- Whether non-supply of the AGM video recording could independently result in disqualification.
- Whether the five-year disqualification under Section 154B-23 was disproportionate or liable to be interfered with.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that the Deputy Registrar had imposed an excessively harsh punishment for an alleged procedural lapse.
They argued that Respondent No. 4 was himself a managing committee member and was therefore already privy to the society’s records. According to them, he demanded the documents with the deliberate intention of creating grounds for their disqualification.
The petitioners claimed that they had attempted to furnish the records to Respondent No. 4, but he had refused to accept them. They relied on a society letter dated 26 December 2023 to support this assertion.
They further submitted that all the documents were ultimately supplied and that there had been substantial compliance with the statutory requirement.
It was argued that disqualification under Section 154B-23 was not automatic in every case of delay and that the Deputy Registrar retained discretion to consider whether the breach was deliberate, bona fide or merely technical.
The petitioners also contended that the 45-day period under Section 154B-8(2) had not commenced because the copying charges had not actually been received. The cheques submitted by Respondent No. 4 were not deposited or encashed by the society.
Reliance was placed on Kailash Maheshwari v. State of Maharashtra to argue that disqualification should not follow mechanically and on Smt. Nair Pushpa Sureshkumar v. State of Maharashtra regarding the requirement of payment of copying charges.
Respondent’s Arguments
Respondent No. 4 submitted that three authorities had concurrently found deliberate non-compliance by the petitioners and that no ground for writ interference was made out.
He argued that the case did not concern a minor or technical delay. Despite repeated written requests and multiple directions from the Deputy Registrar, the petitioners intentionally withheld the documents.
Respondent No. 4 maintained that being a committee member did not deprive him of the statutory rights available to every member under Section 154B-8.
He contended that he had attached cheques towards copying charges with both applications. The society could not avoid its statutory obligation merely by declining to deposit those cheques.
It was further argued that the petitioners’ alleged attempt to furnish the records was unsupported by documentary evidence. The material relied upon by them referred to some other reply or correspondence and did not demonstrate that copies of the minutes or AGM recording had actually been offered to him.
Respondent No. 4 also submitted that the minutes were important because several committee meetings had allegedly been conducted without proper notice or agenda and material decisions had been taken in those meetings.
Analysis of the Law
Right of members to inspect and obtain documents
Section 154B-8(1) grants every member of a housing society the right to inspect, free of cost, specified documents including:
- the society’s bye-laws;
- audited financial statements;
- register of members;
- minutes of general meetings; and
- minutes of committee meetings.
Under Section 154B-8(2), a society must provide copies of these documents within 45 days from the date of payment of the prescribed fees upon receiving a written request.
The Court held that the statutory right is available to every member. A person does not lose this right merely because he is also a member of the managing committee.
Payment by cheque
Respondent No. 4 had submitted cheques of ₹200 along with both requests. The society did not dispute receipt of the letters or the cheques before the Deputy Registrar.
The High Court rejected the argument that copying charges could be regarded as unpaid because the cheques were never encashed.
The case did not involve dishonoured cheques. Once Respondent No. 4 tendered payment through cheques, it was for the society to deposit them. A society cannot defeat the statutory time limit by deliberately choosing not to encash the payment offered.
Accordingly, the 45-day periods commenced from 5 October and 8 October 2023.
Consequences of non-compliance
Section 154B-23(1)(iii) provides that a committee member held responsible for a breach of Section 154B-8(2) becomes disqualified from being appointed, nominated, elected or co-opted as a committee member.
Under Section 154B-23(2), such a person ceases to be a committee member and the seat becomes vacant.
Section 154B-23(3) further renders the person ineligible for re-election, re-co-option or re-nomination for five years.
The Court accepted that disqualification does not automatically follow immediately after the expiry of 45 days. The Registrar must conduct an inquiry and determine responsibility. The committee members may demonstrate that the delay was unintentional, justified or that substantial compliance had occurred.
However, the statutory obligation to furnish documents is mandatory, and deliberate withholding of records can legitimately attract disqualification.
Substantial compliance
The Court distinguished between a minor technical delay and a deliberate refusal to furnish documents.
In the present case:
- the Deputy Registrar had to intervene repeatedly;
- two letters were issued in November and December 2023;
- statutory directions were thereafter issued under Section 154B-27;
- the minutes were deposited with the Deputy Registrar only in January 2024;
- the AGM recording was deposited only in March 2024; and
- Respondent No. 4 personally received the records much later.
Merely depositing records with the Deputy Registrar and asking that office to forward them did not discharge the society’s statutory obligation to directly furnish them to the requesting member.
Precedent Analysis
Shahid Tamboli v. Divisional Joint Registrar
The Bombay High Court had previously emphasised that the use of the word “shall” in Section 154B-8(2), along with the statutory penalty of disqualification, demonstrates the mandatory nature of the duty to furnish records.
At the same time, that decision recognised that the Registrar must consider whether the default was intentional and whether the committee had substantially complied with the obligation.
A minor or technical breach may not invariably warrant disqualification where the committee has acted bona fide and done everything within its control.
The Court applied this principle but found that the petitioners’ conduct was neither bona fide nor substantial compliance.
Mahesh Madhukar Bhartiya v. Divisional Joint Registrar
The Court noted that a CD containing the video recording of an AGM or special general meeting is not one of the documents specifically enumerated under Section 154B-8(1).
Therefore, non-supply of an AGM video recording by itself would not attract disqualification under Section 154B-23(1)(iii).
However, the present case also involved non-supply of the minutes of 13 managing committee meetings, which are expressly included within Section 154B-8(1). Their non-supply clearly constituted statutory default.
Kailash Maheshwari v. State of Maharashtra
The petitioners relied on this decision to contend that the power of disqualification was discretionary.
The Court held that the decision concerned Section 75 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and did not govern disqualification under Section 154B-23.
Even assuming that the Deputy Registrar retained some discretion, the petitioners’ conduct did not justify exercising that discretion in their favour.
Smt. Nair Pushpa Sureshkumar v. State of Maharashtra
The petitioners relied on this decision in relation to payment of copying fees.
The Court distinguished the factual position because Respondent No. 4 had undisputedly tendered the copying charges through cheques, and there was no allegation that the cheques were dishonoured. The society’s decision not to encash them could not be used against the member.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found an admitted failure to furnish the minutes within the statutory period of 45 days.
The petitioners’ assertion that Respondent No. 4 refused to accept the records was not supported by reliable documentary material. The society’s letter dated 26 December 2023 referred only to an attempted delivery of a reply or letter, not to an attempted delivery of the requested minutes and recording.
Another paragraph of the same communication merely expressed an intention to submit the requested documents to the Deputy Registrar “as early as possible,” demonstrating that they had not yet been supplied.
The records were eventually deposited with the Deputy Registrar after substantial delay, rather than being given directly to Respondent No. 4. The AGM recording was ultimately received after 263 days, while the committee minutes were received after 377 days.
The Court found that the petitioners repeatedly compelled the Deputy Registrar to intervene. Four communications or statutory steps were required before the disqualification proceedings were initiated.
The demand for documents could also not be dismissed as mala fide. Respondent No. 4 had alleged that:
- notices for committee meetings contained no proper agenda;
- he had not been informed about most meetings;
- financial and administrative decisions had been taken without his knowledge; and
- certain actions had been criticised in audit reports.
The Court held that transparency in the functioning of a co-operative housing society is the central object of Section 154B-8. Committee members cannot govern the society in disregard of statutory disclosure obligations merely because the organisation is a residential society.
The petitioners had demonstrated a deliberate reluctance to share minutes even with another elected committee member. Their conduct therefore justified the disqualification.
The Court also noted that the petitioners continued to retain all rights relating to their flats as ordinary society members. They were only deprived of the right to serve as office-bearers or committee members during the disqualification period.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that the petitioners had deliberately failed to supply the minutes of the managing committee meetings within the mandatory 45-day period prescribed by Section 154B-8(2).
The tender of copying charges through cheques constituted sufficient payment, and the society could not rely on its own failure to deposit the cheques.
Although non-supply of the AGM video recording alone could not result in disqualification, failure to furnish the committee meeting minutes—documents expressly covered by Section 154B-8—was sufficient.
The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar and Minister for Co-operation.
The writ petition was dismissed without costs.
Case: Shashikant M. Ramane and Others v. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, SRA/MHADA and Others
Court: Bombay High Court
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 7757 of 2026
Judge: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Date: 1 July 2026
Result: Writ petition dismissed; five-year disqualification of the managing committee members upheld.
