The Bombay High Court has upheld disqualification of a man from the managing committee of his housing society because he had more than two children. The court said that as per the small family rule introduced in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (MCS) Act in 2019, the man stood disqualified.
Section 73C of the MCS Act lists grounds on which a person shall be held disqualified from being a member of the housing society’s managing committee. The 73CA(1) (i)(f)(vii) states such person who “has more than two children” shall be held disqualified.
The HC dismissed a petition filed by Pawankumar Singh, a member of Charkop Kandivali Ekta Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited in Kandivali west challenging the May 2 order of the Divisional Joint Registrar which upheld his disqualification by Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society MHADA on May 15, 2023.
After the society election in 2023, two members – Deepak Tejade and Ramachal Yadav – lodged a complaint with the deputy registrar claiming that Singh was disqualified to be on the managing committee as he has more than two children. This was in violation of Section 154B-23 of the MCS Act, they argued.
Singh’s advocate Swapnil Bangur argued that section 154B(1) of the MCS Act excludes the applicability of Sections 154B-1 to 154B-31 of the Act to co-operative housing societies. Hence the deputy registrar could not have declared Singh as disqualified and should have rejected the complaints by Tejade and Yadav.
Opposing the plea, Tejade and Yadav’s advocate Uday Warunjikar said that relevant provisions of the Act were applicable to housing societies and hence Singh’s disqualification was justified.
Agreeing, justice Avinash Gharote said: “Section 154B-23 is an independent provision, and operates independently and would mandate disqualification of a member if he has more than two children.”
The complaint had pointed out that Singh’s ration card names three children. However, Singh claimed he was not his child and was only brought to his residence for his studies. However, he had failed to produce the third child’s birth certificate.
“I have no other option than to go with the findings recorded by the authorities below, which considers (child) as the son of the petitioner, on account of his name being found in the Ration Card, which insertion is obviously at the behest of the petitioner (Singh),” Justice Gharote underlined.
