Q. Do the recently amended housing society rules permit online attendance of members for such redevelopment Special General Body Meetings (SGBMs)? Whether presence of the registrar’s representative for such general body meetings and the NOC from the registrar’s office for re-development is still necessary? What is the quorum now required for such SGBMs to commence proceedings and what is the quorum for passing the resolution for selecting the developer for re-development? What if the requisite quorum is not present at the commencement of the SGBM? — Professotr Alok Hardikar Vile Parle (East)
A. The Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961, were recently amended and notified on June 18. Provisions pertaining to SGBMs for redevelopment are contained in Rule 106C-13(3)(i) and (j).
Online attendance of members allowed: Rule 106C-13(3)(j) permits members to attend through video conferencing. It provides that a resolution selecting a developer or contractor for redevelopment must be passed by 51% of the total members of the society, including those attending through video conferencing. This provision should substantially address the quorum difficulties faced by many housing societies.
However, sub-rule (i) mandates 14 clear days’ notice and states that the quorum for a redevelopment-related SGBM shall be two-thirds of the total members. Thus, the quorum required to commence such an SGBM continues to be two-thirds of the total membership.
Presence of registrar’s representative required: Sub-rule (i) states that such a meeting shall be conducted in the presence of the Registrar’s representative. It also mandates video recording of the meeting, which must remain in the chairman’s custody, with one copy kept in the office of the Assistant or Deputy Registrar within whose jurisdiction the society is located.
Thus, the Registrar’s representative must be present at the SGBM convened to select the Developer, and video recording is mandatory.
Registrar’s NOC not required: Sub-rule (j) requires the registrar’s representative to submit a factual report regarding the conduct of the meeting to the Registrar, who must communicate the same to the society.
The wording makes it clear that the representative is only required to submit a factual report and the Registrar is required only to communicate it to the society. No NOC whatsoever from the Registrar, Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar is required for selection or appointment of the Developer for a redevelopment project.
As regards absence of the requisite quorum, however, the amended Rules are silent. Sub-rule (f) provides that, except in the case of a requisitioned SGBM, if there is no quorum at the appointed time, the meeting may be adjourned to a later hour on the same day and at the same place, if specified in the notice, or to a subsequent date not earlier than seven days and not later than 30 days. At such an adjourned meeting, business may be transacted irrespective of whether the required quorum is present.
However, sub-rule (j) mandates that the resolution selecting the Developer must be approved by 51% of the total members. These provisions are contradictory and are bound to trigger litigation, potentially delaying redevelopment. A clarificatory amendment is therefore necessary to specify that even an adjourned redevelopment SGBM must have the two-thirds quorum required to commence proceedings.
The wording of sub-rule (i) also creates an impression that all redevelopmentrelated SGBMs – including those for appointing the PMC or approving the Development Agreement (DA) – must be conducted in the presence of the Registrar’s representative. I do not feel this is the government’s intention. A clear amendment on this aspect is therefore also necessary to prevent future litigation on this important issue.
(Advocate Shirish V Deshpande is chairman, Mumbai Grahak Panchayat. Queries can be sent to him on email: shirish50@yahoo.com)
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
