The Supreme Court has made it clear that co-operative housing societies cannot stall membership decisions indefinitely and then hide behind autonomy. If a society drags its feet or simply refuses to decide, statutory authorities are well within their rights to intervene.
The ruling came in a dispute involving flat owners at Malboro House Co-operative Housing Society in Mumbai, who had been living peacefully in their homes for years but were never formally admitted as members. After repeated approaches to the society led nowhere, the residents turned to the Divisional Joint Registrar under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Registrar ordered that membership be granted.
That decision was later struck down by the Bombay High Court, which held that only the society itself could decide who becomes a member. The flat owners then carried the fight to the Supreme Court.
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the apex court underlined that while housing societies do enjoy freedom in managing their internal affairs, that freedom is not absolute. A society cannot refuse to act—or keep matters pending for years—and expect public authorities to remain spectators.
The court noted that the residents had followed the proper sequence: they first approached the society’s authorised officer, and only after the officer declined to decide on their applications did they invoke the statutory appeal and revision mechanisms available under the law. In such circumstances, intervention by the Registrar was not an overreach but a necessary corrective.
The Supreme Court restored the Registrar’s direction granting membership to the flat owners, calling the High Court’s reasoning unsustainable. At the same time, it left room for other members of the society to raise separate issues, including claims relating to additional or enhanced interest arising from delays in payment of contributions. Any challenge to the society’s AGM decision dated September 30, 2025, was also left open to be examined independently, in accordance with law.
With this ruling, the court has sent a pointed message: autonomy cannot be used as a shield for inaction, and fairness must prevail when residents are left waiting without reason.
