Q: There is a society with a building of 80 flats in Dahisar. The society has passed a resolution to go for re-development. However, members are divided on whether to opt for builder-led or selfredevelopment. I wish to know whether the guidelines under Section 79A apply to the Special General Body meeting that will decide on self-redevelopment. If the majority favours self-redevelopment, will the selection of the contractor be governed by the 79A guidelines? Will the permission of the c (DDR) be required to organise this meeting? Is the presence of the DDR’s representative and video recording mandatory? Lastly, will society need an NOC from the DDR’s office for self-redevelopment?
— Neha Joshi (Goregaon – East)
A: At the outset, note that in any redevelopment involving a sale component – whether through a builder, cluster redevelopment, or self-redevelopment – societies must substantially follow the GR dated July 4, 2019, issued under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, commonly known as the 79A Guidelines. Though not mandatory, substantial compliance is expected to ensure transparency and fairness.
As per Clause 2, the procedure prescribed for appointing a developer also applies to appointing a contractor in self-redevelopment. Clause 17 mandates the DDR to depute an ‘authorised officer’ to ensure the special general body meeting (SGM) is held transparently. The secretary must fix the date, time, and venue of the SGM with prior permission of the authorised officer and give members at least 14 days’ notice. Video recording of the proceedings is required to maintain transparency. The quorum for such a meeting is two-thirds of the total membership, and written consent of at least 51% of the total members is necessary for selecting the developer or contractor.
As for the NOC from the registrar/DDR’s office, the guidelines are completely silent. However, the DDR’s office had made it a practice to issue such NOCs, and developers were often forced to pay illegal gratification ranging between Rs15,000 and Rs50,000 per flat.
In a landmark judgment on October 17th, 2025, in Baltazar Fernandes & Others v/s DDR, H (West) Ward & Others, the Bombay High Court ruled that neither the MCS Act, its Rules, nor the 79A Guidelines require the registrar’s NOC for redevelopment decisions taken by housing societies. Justice Amit Borkar clarified that the registrar’s role is purely supervisory – to ensure the SGM is properly conducted, quorum is present, voting is fair, and proceedings are video recorded. The registrar/DDRs have no adjudicatory or discretionary power to issue or refuse an NOC.
The court further warned that if a registrar delays or refuses to appoint an authorised officer, such conduct can be challenged before the competent authority or court. It also directed the commissioner of co-operatives to issue a circular instructing all registrars/DDRs not to insist upon, accept, or process redevelopment proposals based on such ‘no objection certificates’ and to file an affidavit confirming compliance by November 6, 2025.
It is hoped that housing societies, PMCs, and developers will now have the courage to refuse this illegal NOC practice of the DDR.
(Advocate Shirish V Deshpande is chairman, Mumbai Grahak Panchayat. Queries can be sent to him on email: shirish50@yahoo.com)
