Chronology Matters – Bombay HC on Competing Housing Society Registrations under Section 10 MOFA
Two competing proposals for registration of the housing society. The proposal prior in time assumes importance. An earlier proposal disclosing a prima facie claim under the statute cannot be ignored. The authority must first examine the first proposal and after recording a reasoned order thereon, the authority can consider subsequent application. This will ensure fairness in quasi judicial decision.
If a subsequent proposal by the promoter is allowed to override or neutralize such earlier application without adjudication, the very purpose of the proviso to section 10(1) of MOFA stands diluted.
If a subsequent proposal by the promoter is allowed to override or neutralize such earlier application without adjudication, the very purpose of the proviso stands diluted.
On 12.3.2025, the petitioner & Chief Promoter had filed application of the housing society under section 10(1) of MOFA.
Subsequently, on 13.3.2025, one Rohit Jadhav claiming to be the Chief Promoter filed application for registration of society. The said application was allowed on 9.6.2025.
However, the application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 17.6.2025 on the ground that permission was already granted by the Assistant Registrar to open a bank account of the society.
The record reveals that the petitioner’s proposal was kept pending while, in the meantime, permission was granted to the developer to open a bank account and complete consequential steps. Thereafter, the pendency of such steps was cited as a ground to reject the petitioner’s application. This sequence has the effect of conferring a undue advantage upon the developer. The authority was expected to maintain impartiality between competing claimants. Instead, the manner in which the proceedings were disposed of indicates that the promoter’s proposal was allowed while the earlier application of the purchasers remained undecided. Even if there was no conscious bias, the perception of undue favour cannot be ignored when an earlier statutory application is effectively rendered redundant by subsequent order favouring developer to gain advantage claiming alleged less area.
Judgment dated 3.2.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.11982 of 2025 with S.P. (ST) No.29872 of 2025 of Sandeep Bhausaheb Shelar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
