In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court turned down a request to challenge the appointment of a temporary manager for a housing society because there weren't enough members to make decisions. Here's a simple breakdown of what happened.
The request was made by Vijay Lakhi and others who were part of the leadership team of the Purshottam Bhagwan Cooperative Housing Society in Mumbai. The people they were up against included the Minister of Co-operation and other officials.
The leadership team originally had eight members, but after four members quit, the team was left with only four, which was not enough to make official decisions. This led to the appointment of a temporary manager to run the society's affairs.
"The team was reduced to 4 members, thus not enough to make decisions," the court said.
Vijay Lakhi and his team argued that they had added new members to fill the empty spots and claimed that a new Government Rule from January 2024, which allowed a smaller team size, should apply to their situation.
The court noted that the leadership team's size had indeed fallen below what was needed to make decisions, making it unable to function properly. The attempt to add new members was considered invalid because the team didn't have the authority to do so.
"Without enough members, it cannot hold meetings, make decisions, or add new members," the court explained.
The court emphasized that the new Government Rule was meant for the future, not the past. This means it couldn't apply to the team formed in 2022. The rules at that time required eight members with at least five to make decisions.
The Registrar acted under Section 77A, appointing a temporary manager because the team couldn't function. The court agreed with this decision, pointing out the need for quick action to ensure the society was managed properly.
"Quick action was needed to protect the interests of the society," the decision stated.
The court turned down the request but told the current temporary manager to start the election process within two weeks to bring back democratic leadership.
This case shows the importance of following rules for making decisions and the limits on using new rules for past situations. It also highlights the court's role in making sure cooperative societies run smoothly.
