A housing cooperative society can prescribe specific membership qualifications based on community identity via their bye-laws, and such restrictions remain valid unless successfully challenged or overturned by law, and cannot be unilaterally overridden by the Registrar.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner Society - Maharashtra CGHS Ltd., inter alia, assailing theimpugned order dated 19th June, 2025, (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’)passed by the ld. Assistant Registrar, office of Registrar of Co-operative Societies (hereinafter, ‘RCS’).

3. A brief background of the present case is that the Bye-laws of the Petitioner Societyconsists of a clause to the following effect:

“ [...]

4. The members shall consist of:-

(1) persons who join in the application for registration.

(2) Persons admitted in accordance with these byelaws;

and

(3) Nominal or associate members subject to conditions

as laid down in Rule 26.

5. (i). Any person shall be eligible to be a member of

the society provided:-

(a) he is domiciled in Delhi, New Delhi/Delhi

Cantonment; and is a member of Delhi Maharashtra

Educational and Cultural Society.

(b) his written application for membership has been

approved by a majority of the Managing Committee;

(c) his age is more than 18 years, except in the case of

minor heir of a deceased member;

(d) he is not a member of any other house

building/Group Housing society;

(e) he or his wife (she or her husband, in case of a

woman or any of his/her dependents does not own a

dwelling

f) directly or indirectly he does not deal in purchase or

sale of houses/fiats or land for construction of

houses/fiats either himself or through any of his

dependents;

g) he is not a servant of Government/Local Body/High

Court/Supreme Court unless permitted by the Head of

Department in which he is working,

(h) he has carried out the provisions of these bye-laws.”

4. In the present case, the Respondent no. 2-Mr. Ramakant J. Nalawade was one of the founding members and Chairman of the Petitioner Society, which was registered as per law.

5. The case of the Petitioner society is that it sought a minority community status for Maharashtrians in Delhi, to promote the culture, character and spirit of Maharashtrian community and Marathispeaking persons. Over the years, only Maharashtrians or Marathispeaking persons have been admitted to membership in the Petitioner Society.

6. Respondent No.2, was allotted flat no. 74, Anandvan Apartment, A-6, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘the flat’) in the PetitionerSociety. Sometime in May, 2025, he decided to sell the flat and transfer the membership in the Petitioner Society to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

7. Vide the impugned order, the RCS directed the Petitioner Society to issue the NOC to Respondent No.2 within seven days from the receipt of the order.

8. According to the Petitioner Society, RespondentNo. 3 and 4do not qualify for membership of the Petitioner Society, in view of clause 5(i)(a) of the bye-laws of the Petitioner Society, as they do not belong to the Maharashtrian community. Thus, the No Objection Certificate (hereinafter, ‘NOC’) for transfer of the membership was not issued by the Petitioner Society.

9. The submission on behalf of ld. Counsel for the Petitioner Society is that, in terms of the bye-laws extracted above, since Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not Maharashtrian in origin and neither are the members of the Delhi Maharashtra Educational and Cultural Society, they are not eligible for membership of the Petitioner’s Society.

10. Upon a query from the Court, as to whether such a condition which is imposed, would be valid in law, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner Society relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Zoroastrian Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. District Registrar, Coop. Societies (Urban), (2005) 5 SCC 632 wherein the Supreme Court has