Govt Resolution Mandating Floating Of Tender To Appoint Developer For Redevelopment Of Society Is Directory: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently reiterated that the Government Resolution (GR) issued on July 4, 2019 mandating floating of tenders for finalising a developer for redevelopment of a society, is not mandatory but is of directory in nature.

A division bench of Justices Shyam Suman and Manjusha Deshpande held that mere non-floating of a tender to appoint a developer will not mean that there has been a violation of the object of some statute.

While referring to various judgments of the High Court on the very issue, stated, "This Court has taken a view that the GR dated July 4, 2019, is not mandatory, but directory in nature. The guidelines are intended to be followed to ensure a fair and transparent redevelopment process. Therefore, every deviation and procedural lapse by itself does not constitute actionable wrong unless it is violative of the object of the directives or some statutory requirement."The judges further reiterated that in such cases, a decision taken by the majority of the members of the society would prevail and not the opposition by the minority members.

The bench was dealing with a plea filed by one Devendra Kumar Jain, who challenged the appointment of Cunni Realty and Developers Pvt. Ltd. for the redevelopment of one Ramanuj Co-operative Housing Society, situated in Goregaon, Mumbai.

According to the petitioner, who himself was a former Chairman of the said society, the society under its new chairman has breached the provisions of the 2019 GR by not floating tender inviting other developers too. It was alleged that the decision was arbitrary and illegal as the mandatory GR was not followed at all.

The society through senior counsel Mukesh Vashi assisted by Vaishali Sanghvi of Solicis Lex, argued that the due procedure was followed and the developer in question was appointed only after 76 out of the 77 members, who attended the meeting, consented. The society has total of 83 members of which only 77 attended the meeting. Considering the same, the judges said, "A majority decision taken in a properly convened meeting will prevail. Thus, taking into consideration the consistent view expressed by this Court, the prayers made by the Petitioner are not maintainable, as the decision for appointment of the Respondent No.4 (Developer) has been taken by the majority, in accordance with law and it is done under the supervision of the Authorised Officer of the Respondent No.2 (Deputy Registar). No case for interference is made out by the Petitioner."

Appearance:

Advocates Manoj Upadhyay and Rakesh Mishra appeared for the Petitioner.

Assistant Government Pleader Rakesh Pathak State.

Senior Advocate Mukesh Vashi, Vaishali Sanghavi, Pratik Shetty, Palak Mehta, Prachi Parmar and Ameet Mehta instructed by Solicis Lex represented the Society. Advocates Abhishek Sawant and Karan Bhargava represented the Developer.

Case Title: Devendra Kumar Jain vs State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition (L) 7536 of 2025]

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment