Bombay HC Rules ‘No Objection Certificate’ From Registrar Unnecessary And Illegal For Cooperative Housing Redevelopment

Mumbai: In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court has ruled that a “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) from the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies is not only unnecessary but illegal for the selection of a developer under Section 79(A) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

Justice Borkar Clarifies Registrar’s Role

Justice Amit Borkar, in a detailed order dated October 17, 2025, clarified that the Government Resolution (GR) of July 4, 2019, does not authorise Registrars to issue such NOCs to housing societies.

“Neither the Act nor the Rules contain a provision requiring the Registrar’s approval or permission for redevelopment decisions taken by a cooperative housing society,” the court observed.

Case Background

The ruling came in a petition filed by Baltazar Fernandes and others of a cooperative housing society in Bandra challenging the role of the Deputy Registrar, H-West Ward, who had issued a “No Objection” for a society’s redevelopment proposal. Justice Borkar held that such action “has no legal foundation” and “does not confer any legal status upon the redevelopment decision, nor is it a condition precedent to its validity.”

Supremacy of the General Body

The court underscored that under the cooperative framework, the General Body of a housing society is the supreme authority. “The decision to redevelop the building is one such matter falling squarely within the domain of the General Body,” the judgment said.

Once a majority decision is taken as per the bye-laws and the GR of July 4, 2019, it binds the society. Any aggrieved member can challenge the process before the Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the Act, the court added.

Limited Role of the Registrar

Elaborating on the Registrar’s limited role, Justice Borkar said: “The Registrar has no authority, either under statute or under the Government Resolution, to insist upon a ‘No Objection’ before or after the society’s decision. His role is limited to ensuring that the process is transparent and that all members get a fair opportunity to participate.”

Authorised Officer’s Supervisory Duties

The judgment emphasised that the Authorised Officer nominated by the Registrar is only required to supervise the Special General Meeting where the developer is selected, to verify quorum, ensure proper record-keeping, and maintain transparency. Societies are required to forward copies of notices, agendas, and minutes to the Registrar within fifteen days — a measure intended for record maintenance, not approval.

Recourse in Case of Registrar Delays

If a Registrar fails or delays appointing an Authorised Officer, the court said, societies may seek legal recourse — but the absence of a “No Objection” cannot invalidate a lawfully conducted redevelopment process.

Court Directs Systemic Reforms

Calling the July 2019 GR a measure to ensure “procedural discipline, accountability, and transparency,” Justice Borkar concluded: “The Registrar’s function is only to oversee that the process is fair and in conformity with law, not to control or substitute the collective will of the members.”

Directing systemic reforms, the court instructed the learned AGP to communicate the order to the Commissioner of Cooperation and the Principal Secretary (Cooperation Department), Mantralaya, who must issue a circular to all Registrars across the State.

The circular must expressly prohibit them from insisting upon or processing redevelopment proposals based on such NOCs and reiterate their supervisory duties. Compliance is to be reported to the court on November 6.

MGP Welcomes Verdict

Hailing the order as “historic,” the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat (MGP), through its chairperson Shirish Deshpande, lauded Justice Borkar “for his decisive stand against corruption.” MGP noted that “the practice of recovering Rs 15,000 to Rs 50,000 per flat for such NOCs had become a topic of public debate.”

It alleged that Deputy Registrars often “interfered even before developer selection, introducing the concept of a ‘Preferred Developer’ to facilitate large financial transactions.” With this ruling, MGP said, “both the NOC and the ‘preferred developer’ mechanisms are expected to be buried for good.”

The consumer body urged developer associations such as NAREDCO, MCHI, and CREDAI “to stop encouraging such illegal collections by Deputy Registrars” and instead ensure that “these funds are directed toward housing societies and their members.”

Also Watch:

The High Court clarified that the registrar’s role is confined to ensuring that:

* The Special General Body Meeting is properly conducted,

* The required quorum is present,

* The voting and selection process is transparent and fair,

* Video recording of the proceedings is maintained.The 4 July 2019 GR does not grant

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/