2025:BHC-OS:24679-DB 85 WPL 35421.25.DOC

LSP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 35421 of 2025

Divaliben Tokarshi Gada and others …Petitioners

Versus

State of Maharashtra and others …Respondents

Mr R.K.Mendadkar a/w. Mr. Siddhanth Sawai and Prajakta Pashte,

for the Petitioners.

Mr Aniket S. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No.6

Mr P.G. Lad a/w. Sayali Apte, for the Respondents-MHADA

Mr Nishigandh Patil, AGP for the Respondents-State.

Mr Ranjeev Carvalho a/w. Rishab Muali a/w. Sakshi Agarwal i/b.

Bipin Joshi, for the Respondent No.7.

CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &

S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATED: 10^th December 2025.

D si i g g n it e a d l l b y y PC:-

LATA

LATA SUNIL

SUNIL PANJWANI

PANJWANI Date:

2025.12.15

11:47:41

+0530

1. Based on the Resolution adopted in its General Body meeting of the Housing Society-Respondent No.6, held on 18^th August 2023, the Respondent No.2 – MHADA had issued NOC dated 22^nd August 2025 for redevelopment of the property and accordingly, intimation of approval was also issued on 19^th September 2025. The four Writ Petitioners herein are amongst the 51 recorded members of the Housing Society. They have approached this Court by filing the present petition seeking to resist the proposal of redevelopment interalia contending that the

remaining members are not genuine members of the Society and the Resolution of the Society for redevelopment as projected by the contesting party is not legitimate in the eyes of law.

2. It appears that the present Petitoners have already made a complaint before the Respondent No.5 i.e. the Dy. Registrar of Co- operative Societies based on which, show-cause notice dated 30^th June 2025 has also been issued to the Respondent No.6-Society. The Petitioners have prayed for issuance of a direction to expedite the adjudication of the proceedings initiated on the basis of show-

cause notice dated 30^th June 2025.

3. In support of the prayer made in the Writ Petition, Mr. Mendadkar, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that until such time there is resolution of the controversy by the Respondent No.5, the redevelopment proposal be stayed.

4. Opposing the said prayer Mr. Lad, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4, submits that the NOC has been issued by his client based on the Resolution adopted by the majority members of the Society. If there is a private dispute between two factions of the members of the Society, the Respondent No.4 would not have anything to do with the same.

5. In so far as the proceedings before the Respondent No.5 is concerned, the learned counsel for the Respondent No.6 has candidly submitted that his client would not have any objection to participating in the said proceedings, facilitating expeditious disposal of the same.

6. Resisting any prayer for interim-relief, Mr. Carvalho, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.7 i.e. Builder submits that any delay in the commencement of the redevelopment project would entail heavy financial burden on his client as the developer is required to defray the rental expenses for the members of the Society with regard to the alternate accomodation they will occupy until the project is complete.

7. After hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we find force in the submission of the Respondent No.4 that unless it is shown that the NOC dated 28^th August 2025 or the intimation of approval dated 19^th September 2025 is dehors the law as challenge to the same cannot be entertained in this Writ Petition.

8. In so far as the other prayer for expediting the proceedings before the Respondent No.5 is concerned, we find the said prayer to be reasonable. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.6 aggreeing to co-operate in the matter, we direct that the proceeding pending before the Respondent No.5 be expedited. An attempt be made to dispose of the said proceedings as expeditiously as possible preferably within 12 weeks from the