Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. They submitted that during the pendency of these writ petitions, respondents procured a resolution dated 30 September 2025 in the Annual General Meeting to prejudice the petitioners.

wpl15089 & 15091-2025-J.doc The resolution does not affect the petitioners' challenge. The general body adopted the resolution by a 5:3 vote. Out of these five votes, the membership of flat No.7 and all consequential actions have already been set aside by this Court on 19 November 2025. Further, the membership of the alleged flat No.9 in the name of Prachi Agarwal is also under challenge. She is the sister in law of respondent No.3 and daughter in law of respondent No.5. Both sides have voted for each other in these disputed memberships. If these two votes are excluded, the voting would stand at 3:3 and no resolution would have been carried. Such a resolution cannot prevent the petitioners from asserting their rights under the exception recognised in Daman Singh v. State of Punjab, (1985) 2 SCC 670. Referring to Section 154B 2, they submitted that at the time of registering a cooperative society, the sanctioned plan and the total number of flats shown therein decide the eligibility for membership. Section 154B 1 defines a flat in clear terms. Unless the sanctioned plan shows a newly created flat as an independent unit, the society cannot create it to grant undue advantage to some members or to create an artificial majority. They prayed that the impugned judgment and order be set aside.

22. Section 154B-5 imposes a strict limit on membership. A housing society cannot admit more members than the number of flats available for allotment "in that society". The expression "in that society" refers to the flats recognised at the time of registration and appearing in the sanctioned plan. This provision wpl15089 & 15091-2025-J.doc leaves no discretion to the general body, the managing committee or even the Registrar. Membership is tied entirely to the number of flats as per the sanctioned plan. No sale deed, gift deed, family arrangement, inspection report or general body resolution can enlarge the number of flats. Only a sanctioned modification by the planning authority can do so. This section is the statutory safeguard against manipulation of voting strength by creating artificial flats.

43. In the present case, the petitioners are not asserting an individual right outside the statute. They are asserting a right under the statute. They say the membership granted to respondent No.3 violates Sections 154B-1(13), 154B-2, 154B-3 and 154B-5 because the disputed premises is not shown as a flat in the sanctioned plan. This is not an issue of internal administration. It concerns adherence to a mandatory statutory condition. Daman Singh does not permit the society to violate the statute. The Supreme Court never held that the general body can validate an illegality. It only held that once the statute is complied with, an individual member cannot claim independent rights contrary to wpl15089 & 15091-2025-J.doc the statute or the society's decisions. Here, the sanctioned plan fixes the maximum number of flats and members. Membership cannot be enlarged by private transactions or majority will. A general body resolution cannot override a statutory ceiling. Thus, Daman Singh actually supports the petitioners' position rather than weakening it. The petitioners are not challenging an internal policy. They are challenging a breach of mandatory legal conditions. Under the scheme of Sections 154B-2, 154B-3 and 154B-5, the Registrar and society must verify the sanctioned plan before admitting a member. No authority can recognise more members than the number of flats approved by the planning authority. The petitioners say that respondent No.3 seeks membership on the basis of a servant quarter not shown as an independent flat in the sanctioned plan. This challenge goes to the "root of eligibility" and not to "internal autonomy". The principle in Daman Singh does not bar such a challenge.

49. The AGM resolution in the present case must therefore be treated only as a decision of the society under Section 23(2). It is not immune from challenge. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 remains available when the decision of the society violates mandatory provisions of the Act. Admission of members beyond the number of flats shown in the sanctioned plan is an act without legal authority. Such an act cannot be validated by the general body. Therefore, the AGM resolution dated 30 September 2025 does not bar the petitioners from challenging the grant of membership. It is only a decision of the society under Section 23(2). It must stand or fall on its legality. If the membership is contrary to the Act, no resolution of the general wpl15089 & 15091-2025-J.doc body can cure the defect.