The Bombay High Court has definitively clarified that Registrars under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, possess no statutory authority to issue No Objection Certificates for the redevelopment of cooperative housing societies. This ruling resolves a long-standing procedural ambiguity and reasserts the limits of administrative power in cooperative governance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shabnoor Ayub Pathan, challenged the validity of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for the redevelopment of Shree Ganesh Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. The NOC was relied upon by the society to proceed with redevelopment plans under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Revisional Authority subsequently set aside the NOC, prompting the petitioner to file this writ petition seeking its restoration.
Procedural History
- 2024: Petitioner files Writ Petition No. 9571 of 2024 challenging the Revisional Authority’s order quashing the NOC
- October 17, 2025: Bombay High Court in Baltazar Fernandes & Ors. v. Deputy Registrar & Ors. held that Registrars have no power under Section 79A to issue NOCs for redevelopment
- November 4, 2025: Commissioner of Cooperative Societies issued a circular directing all authorities to cease issuing such NOCs
- January 27, 2026: Present petition heard and decided by Justice Amit Borkar
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the Revisional Authority’s order and restore the NOC issued by the Registrar, arguing that the NOC was a procedural formality essential for redevelopment.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has statutory authority under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 to issue No Objection Certificates for the redevelopment of housing societies.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the Registrar’s issuance of the NOC was a routine administrative step, consistent with past practice and necessary for initiating redevelopment. Reliance was placed on prior instances where NOCs were accepted without challenge, and it was argued that denying the NOC would cause undue delay and prejudice to members of the society seeking modernization of infrastructure.
For the Respondent
The respondents, including the Society and the State, relied on the binding precedent in Baltazar Fernandes & Ors. v. Deputy Registrar & Ors., which held that Section 79A does not confer any express or implied power upon the Registrar to issue NOCs. They emphasized that the statutory scheme requires approvals from the General Body and the Commissioner, not the Registrar, and that the NOC was an ultra vires exercise of power.
The Court's Analysis
The Court reaffirmed its earlier holding in Baltazar Fernandes and found no basis to distinguish the present case. The Court examined the language of Section 79A, which empowers the General Body of the society to approve redevelopment and mandates that the Commissioner may grant permission after considering various factors including structural safety and member consent. Nowhere does the provision mention the Registrar or confer upon him any role in issuing NOCs.
"The Registrar is an administrative officer tasked with registration and record-keeping; he is not a statutory authority vested with discretionary power to approve or withhold consent for redevelopment."
The Court noted that the issuance of NOCs by Registrars had become a de facto practice, but practice cannot substitute statutory mandate. The circular issued by the Commissioner on November 4, 2025, was recognized as a lawful and necessary corrective measure. The Court held that both the Registrar’s NOC and the Revisional Authority’s order setting it aside were legally unsustainable, as the former was void ab initio and the latter addressed a non-existent valid order.
The Court explicitly clarified that its ruling does not prejudge the validity of the redevelopment project itself, leaving all substantive issues - such as member consent, structural feasibility, and compliance with building bylaws - to be determined by the appropriate authorities in proper proceedings.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s challenge failed. The Court held that the Registrar has no statutory authority under Section 79A of the MCS Act to issue No Objection Certificates for redevelopment, and both the NOC and the order setting it aside were quashed. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner for appropriate action under the statutory framework.
What This Means For Similar Cases
NOC Issuance by Registrar Is Ultra Vires
- Practitioners must immediately cease relying on Registrar-issued NOCs as valid prerequisites for redevelopment
- Any redevelopment proceeding premised on such an NOC is procedurally defective and vulnerable to challenge
- Society committees must now direct all applications for redevelopment approval exclusively to the Commissioner
Statutory Process Must Be Followed Strictly
- Section 79A requires a two-step process: (1) General Body resolution, and (2) Commissioner’s permission
- No intermediate approvals - whether labeled NOC, clearance, or consent - by subordinate officers are legally recognized
- Legal opinions issued by developers or society advocates asserting the validity of Registrar NOCs are now legally unsound
Remedial Action Shifts to Commissioner
- Petitioners seeking to challenge redevelopment must now target the Commissioner’s order, not the Registrar’s
- Challenges to redevelopment must be framed under Section 79A and not as writ petitions against Registrar’s administrative acts
- The Commissioner’s circular of November 4, 2025, is now binding across Maharashtra and must be cited in all pending matters
