Bombay HC Upholds Disqualification of Committee Members Who Withheld Documents

The Bombay High Court has upheld the disqualification of several managing committee members of a Mumbai co-operative housing society for deliberately failing to supply records sought by a fellow committee member. Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed a writ petition in Shashikant M. Ramane v. Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies on 4 July 2026, affirming concurrent orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, the Joint Registrar and the Minister for Co-operation.

What triggered the dispute

An elected committee member asked the society for copies of minutes from thirteen managing committee meetings held between April 2022 and March 2023, along with the video recording of the September 2023 AGM. He enclosed cheques for copying charges and followed up repeatedly, but the committee did not hand over the documents within the time allowed. This led to disqualification proceedings under Section 154B-23(1)(iii) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

The Court's reasoning

The petitioners argued the requesting member already had inspection rights as a committee member, that the papers were eventually supplied, and that this amounted to substantial compliance that should spare them disqualification. The Court disagreed. It held that once a written request accompanied by copying-charge cheques is submitted, the 45-day clock under Section 154B-8(2) starts running regardless of whether the society chooses to encash those cheques. The Court distinguished a genuine minor delay, which may be excused, from what it found here: a deliberate, prolonged withholding of records despite repeated directions from the Deputy Registrar. It also clarified that while an AGM video recording is not itself a document listed under Section 154B-8(1), the meeting minutes plainly are, and failing to supply them attracts disqualification.

What this means for housing societies

• Any member's written request for committee meeting minutes or similar records must be answered within 45 days of the request under Section 154B-8(2) — the clock starts on request, not on payment.
• Refusing or delaying document-sharing as a tactic against a dissenting or inconvenient member can end in disqualification of the entire committee panel involved.
• "We eventually supplied it" is not a defence once the 45-day window has lapsed and the delay was not a genuine oversight.
• Committees should maintain a simple log of member document requests and dispatch dates to demonstrate timely compliance if ever challenged before the Registrar.

The ruling is a reminder that Section 154B-8's disclosure obligations, introduced to keep society governance transparent, are strictly enforced. Managing committees facing member information requests should treat the 45-day timeline as a hard deadline rather than a negotiable formality.