Bombay HC Sets Aside Deputy Registrar’s NOC For Commercial Use Of Residential Co-op Flat, Says He Had No Power To Issue It

The Society’s building was sanctioned for residential use, including Flat No. 3, which Respondent Nos. 2 and 2(A) sought to convert to commercial use.

After the Society did not provide an NOC, the Deputy Registrar issued a letter stating that his office had no objection to commercial use. The Divisional Joint Registrar dismissed the Society’s revision against that letter.

The Society challenged both decisions, contending that the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction and had acted without hearing it.

Section 79(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, empowers the Registrar to take action that a society is required—but has failed—to take under the Act, Rules or bye-laws; it does not authorize the Registrar to issue an NOC where no such obligation is imposed on the society.

Section 154B-27(3), introduced in 2019, provides a limited remedy concerning applications for certificates relating to a flat, including for sale, mortgage or a similar legally permissible purpose; it does not confer a general power to compel an NOC for change of user.

Shree Raghunandan CHS Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, Siddharth Borivali Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, Oberoi Springs Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Deputy Registrar and Vaibhav Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Divisional Joint Registrar were applied in support of the limits on the Registrar’s authority.

A membership decision under Section 23(2) does not itself determine the permitted use of a flat.

The Deputy Registrar’s letter did not identify a statutory source of power and did more than direct the Society to act: it purported to issue the NOC itself, although neither Section 79 nor the applicable statutory framework authorized that action.

Section 154B-27 was not in force when the letter was issued; in any event, its later provisions did not extend to an NOC for change of user.

The Deputy Registrar also issued the letter without hearing the Society.

The earlier membership order addressed admission to membership, not permission for commercial use, and therefore did not settle the user question.

Any dispute over the Society’s refusal to permit commercial use could be pursued before the Co-operative Court under Section 91.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 2(A) were left at liberty to seek relief under Section 91 of the Act; any such dispute must be decided on its merits, uninfluenced by the Court’s observations.

The petition was allowed, the Rule made absolute, and no order as to costs was made.