Bombay HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Goregaon Redevelopment, Upholds Majority Decision

October 14, 2025: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the redevelopment of a co-operative housing society in Goregaon West, ruling that the decision supported by the majority of members in a properly convened meeting must prevail.

A division bench comprising Justices Suman Shyam and Manjusha Deshpande was hearing a plea filed by Devendra Jain, former chairman of Ramanuj Co-operative Housing Society. Jain had contested the society’s decision to jointly redevelop its property, along with three other nearby housing societies, through Cunni Realty and Developer Pvt Ltd. He alleged that the developer was appointed without inviting public tenders, in violation of the state government’s guidelines issued on July 4, 2019.

Representing Jain, advocate Manoj Upadhyay argued that the society was obligated to float tenders and that several developers had shown interest but were not allowed to participate. However, senior advocate Mukesh Vashi, appearing for the respondents, countered that the petitioner had misrepresented the facts. He clarified that the joint redevelopment involved four societies on SV Road, Goregaon West, and that 323 of the 391 members had approved the project. Within Ramanuj CHS alone, 77 members attended the March 23, 2025, meeting, with 76 voting in favour of appointing Cunni Realty.

Vashi further explained that while other developers expressed interest, none had submitted formal offers. Cunni Realty, also the landlord, was selected in the presence of the authorised officer from the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The bench agreed with Vashi’s contention that the government guidelines were “directory” and meant to ensure transparency rather than being mandatory.

“The guidelines are intended to be followed to ensure a fair and transparent redevelopment process,” the court observed.

“Therefore, every deviation and procedural lapse by itself does not constitute actionable wrong unless it is violative of the object of the directives or some statutory requirement,” it added, dismissing the petition.

Source: Hindustan Times

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *