Occupancy Certificate withheld for six years by the CIDCO – Highhanded action
On 10.8.2021, the Cidco had allotted plot admeasuring 499.87 sq.mts. in Sector 21, Kharghar, New Mumbai, to the petitioner housing society of 17 members and the allotment letter was issued on 14.5.2015.
On 2.6.2015, the petitioner no.1 society was registered.
On 9.6.2015, the agreement to lease was executed.
The Society had applied for construction of 18 flats as per the permissible FSI.
On 15.1.2016, the commencement certificate was given for construction of 18 residential units of a building of stilt plus six floors.
One additional member was admitted and approval was sought from the Cidco.
On 11.7.2018, the construction of building of the Housing Society was completed as per the certificate of the Architect.
On 5.1.2021, the Cidco had issued “occupancy refusal letter” on the ground that “final number of members” for society allotted plot was not furnished.
On 9.2.2022, the Cidco had rejected the representation of the petitioner for Occupancy Certificate on the ground that the Society sought permission to construct one additional unit and admit an additional member and there is no provision in its Rules to grant such permission.
Regulation 27 of the CIDCO Lease of Land to Cooperative Housing Society (Amendment Regulations), 2008. Regulation 21 shows that additional FSI if admissible can be granted on the application of the society.
Thus, there is no legal embargo to enroll an additional member, for the consumption of additional FSI, which may become available to the society.
On such untenable reasons, the petitioners were put in a miserable position by the officers of CIDCO. On one hand, lawful construction of 18 flats as per sanctioned plan was done and on the other hand, the Society is denied entire Occupancy certificate for merely accepting an additional member.
In our opinion, this is a classic case of reaching pinnacle of an illegality and arbitrariness on the part of the concerned Officers of CIDCO who had little sensitivity to human needs and concerns.
The petitioners were required to face immense ordeal, suffering and pain due to such drastic and unreasonable actions of such Officers of the CIDCO in not granting Occupancy Certificate.
We will be thus failing in our duty as Constitutional Court if we do not impose exemplary cost on the CIDCO. This, in our opinion, would hardly be any compensation for the agony and suffering of the members of the petitioner society and above all, breach of their constitutional rights.
We also fail to understand as to how and in what manner and under what provisions of MRTP Act and MCS Act 1960, the Cidco could exercise any control on enrolment of members of a cooperative society even if the allotment was given for the benefit of 17 members. It is not known as to how the addition of one member in a cooperative society things in relation thereto can be any subject which could be controlled by CIDCO. Approval of list of 17 members in the allotment letter as noted by us can by no stretch of imagination be final so as to prohibit the petitioner from admitting additional member
Judgment dated 4.2.2025 of the High Court of Bombay (AS) in Writ Petition No.1042 of 2023 of Dolphin Co.Op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
