JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners herein have prayed for the following reliefs: “A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction: (i) Holding and declaring that the action of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 of directing the petitioner no. 1 society and its members to repair and secure the dilapidated, dangerous and ruinous structures of the petitioner no. 1 society instead of taking appropriate steps to have these dangerous structures vacated/evicted and demolished, is without any application of mind, unconstitutional, unreasonable, irrational, unjustified, and amounts to a refusal to perform their duty under the provisions of the Gujarat Provisional Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and is in clear disregard and contravention of the provisions of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973. (ii) Quashing and setting aside the notices dated 11.9.2018, 6.6.2019 and 19.5.2021 issued by the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to the extent that such notices seek to direct the petitioner no. 1 society and its members to repair and secure the dilapidated, dangerous and ruinous structures of the petitioner no. 1 society instead of taking appropriate steps to have these dangerous structures vacated / evicted and demolished. (iii) Directing the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to take appropriate steps for vacating/evicting and demolishing the dangerous and dilapidated structures of the petitioner no. 1 society in terms of and in exercise of powers and duties under the provisions of the Gujarat Provisional Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. 7A(1) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent nos. 6 to 9 to vacate their respective flats in the petitioner no. 1 society and hand over the peaceful and vacant possession thereof for the purpose of redevelopment as per Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973 and to cooperate in the redevelopment of the petitioner no. 1 society and to not create hindrances or obstructions to the same whatsoever. 7A(2) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent nos. 6 to 9 to vacate their respective flats in the petitioner no. 1 society and to not create hindrances or obstructions to the same whatsoever. 7A(2) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent nos. 6 to 9 to vacate their respective flats in the petitioner no. 1 society and hand over the peaceful and vacant possession thereof for the purpose of redevelopment as per Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973 and to cooperate in the redevelopment of the petitioner no. 1 society and to not create hindrances or obstructions to the same whatsoever. B. Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay and suspend the operation and implementation of the respondent nos. 2 to 4's directions, as contained in the notices dated 11.9.2018, 6.6.2019 and 19.5.2021, directing the petitioner no. 1 society and its members to repair and secure the dilapidated, dangerous and ruinous structures of the petitioner no. 1 society and be further pleased to direct the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to take appropriate steps for getting the dangerous and dilapidated structures of the respondent no. 1 society vacated/evicted and demolished in exercise of powers and duties under the provisions of the Gujarat Provisional Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. C. Ex parte ad-interim relief in terms of prayer B hereinabove be granted. D. Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit in the facts of the present case may be granted.” 2. The petitioner No. 1 is a co-operative housing society registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 having registration No.B-2369 of 1959 and has total 18 members. The petitioner society is the owner of land admeasuring 2003 sq. mt. bearing Final Plot No.13 + 15/7 + 8 of Town Planning Scheme No.3 of Village : Usmanpura, Vibhag Vadaj, Taluka: Sabarmati, District : Ahmedabad. These flats are known as “Nirmalkunj Co-operative Housing Society Limited” and is located behind Nav Gujarat College, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. The petitioner No.2 is the Chairman and the petitioner No. 3 is the Secretary of the petitioner No. 1 society. These flats are known as “Nirmalkunj Co-operative Housing Society Limited” and is located behind Nav Gujarat College, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. The petitioner No.2 is the Chairman and the petitioner No. 3 is the Secretary of the petitioner No. 1 society. 2.1 Total 18 apartments came to be constructed in 3 blocks (Block A, B and C, each Block having 6 flats) on the petitioner society’s land in or around the year 1959 i.e. more than 62 years back and the said apartments were allotted to various members of the petitioner society. Flat Nos.1, 3 and 5 in Block A are of 164 sq. yrd. each and Flat Nos.2, 4 and 6 therein, are of 136 sq. yrd each. All flats in Block B are of 140 sq. yrd each. Flat Nos.1, 3 and 5 in Block C are of 125 sq. yrd. each and Flat Nos.2, 4 and 6 therein, are of 114 sq. yrd. each. 2.2 The construction of the apartments being very old, the structures are in a highly dilapidated state and dangerous. The structures are heavily damaged in the earthquake of 2001 and repaired by the members with the help of the earthquake relief fund established by the Government of Gujarat. In May, 2021, a balcony of Block C collapsed and photos of the same are duly annexed at Annexure -B. In fact, the structures are so ruinous that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) has also issued notices thrice on 11.09.2018, 06.06.2019 and 19.05.2021 under Section 264 of the Gujarat Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 acknowledging the dilapidated condition of the structures and the fact of the collapsed of the balcony but, asked petitioner society to repair these structures. 2.3 The repairing and restrengthening of these structures is not feasible and even if feasible, would involve reconstruction right from the foundation which, even if possible, would be an impractical and herculean task requiring enormous amounts of money which the society and its members would not be in a position to afford. Moreover, embarking on a project of repairing such structure would mean that the members of the society would have to vacate their respective apartments and find alternate accommodation at their own cost during the course of such work, which would also be very expensive for the members and most of the members may not be in a position to afford it. 2.4 The report of the Structural Engineer dated 01.03.2019 is duly produced at Annexure – A, page 31-43, wherein, it is certified that repairing of structural elements as per the latest rules and regulations might call for expensive and uneconomical option for such building. Reconstruction of building will be a better option in all aspects considering the latest rules and regulations, cost and service aspect also. It is opined that the buildings are required to be repaired/reconstructed immediately to avoid any accidental human or property loss due to the falling of local floor slab or balcony elements. The aforesaid is substantiated by the photographs that are produced at page 36-43. 2.5 In view of the same, the petitioner society decided to go for redevelopment as contemplated under the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973. Starting from 2018, a thorough process was followed by the petitioner society and after detailed discussions on various aspects of redevelopment, offers were invited from various builders/developers whereby, majority of members agreed to go with the offer of the respondent No.5. Total 14 members out of 18 members i.e. 77.77% have consented to the redevelopment. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) came to be entered into by the 14 members out of 18 members with regard to the redevelopment with the respondent No.5 on 11.10.2021. A copy of the said MOU is duly produced at Annexure – G. Thus, more than 75% of the members i.e. 77.77% have consented to redevelopment which is in consonance with the provisions of under Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973. 2.6 As on date, all the members, except respondent Nos.6 to 9 have consented for redevelopment with the respondent No.5. The respondent Nos.6 to 9 have refused to co-operate in the redevelopment and have not signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 2.7 In the aforesaid set of facts, the petitioners herein are constrained to approach this Court seeking the reliefs as referred above. 3. Heard Ms. Amrita M. Thakore, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Deep D. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.6, 8 and 9. Though served, none appears for the respondent Nos.5 and 7. 4. Ms. 3. Heard Ms. Amrita M. Thakore, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Deep D. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.6, 8 and 9. Though served, none appears for the respondent Nos.5 and 7. 4. Ms. Amrita M. Thakore, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioner society is in dilapidated, dangerous and ruinous condition for which, the petitioner society decided to go for redevelopment under the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973. Ms. Thakore, learned advocate, submitted that majority of members i.e. 77.77% members have consented for redevelopment. Ms. Thakore, learned advocate, placed reliance on the report of the Structural Engineer dated 01.03.2019 wherein, it is opined that the buildings are in dilapidated condition, heavily damaged and is either required to be repaired or redeveloped else, there is a threat that one of the part of the building would fall, which would result into human or loss of property. Reliance is placed on the photographs duly produced at page 44-46 and it was submitted that, the buildings are in such dilapidated condition that the balcony of Block C collapsed in May, 2021 which is also mentioned in the Notice dated 19.05.2021. Ms. Thakore, learned advocate, also placed reliance on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into between the members petitioner society and the respondent No.5 dated 11.10.2021. Reliance is placed on the amenities provided in the said MOU. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it was submitted that the present petition be allowed. 5. Mr. D.G. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.6, 8 and 9, submitted that the respondent No.9 is B.E. (Civil) Engineer and owner of Flat No.C/5 and is active member of the petitioner No.1-society. It was submitted that the respondent – AMC has suggested repairing vide Notice dated 11.09.2018 issued under Section 264 of the Act. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate, alleged collusion between the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and the respondent No.5 for illegal re- development of the society for unfair financial gain against the welfare of the members of the society. There is no transparency in the redevelopment and no necessary procedure has been carried out by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 for redevelopment of the petitioner No.1 – society. It is disputed that there are signatures of 14 members. There is no transparency in the redevelopment and no necessary procedure has been carried out by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 for redevelopment of the petitioner No.1 – society. It is disputed that there are signatures of 14 members. It is submitted that in fact, signatures of only 10 members were obtained by coercive method. It is submitted that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are not legally elected office bearers of the society and they have no locus-standi to file the present petition. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it was submitted that the present petition be dismissed. 6. Ms. Thakore, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, in re-joinder, placed reliance on the further affidavit filed by the Secretary of the petitioner No.1 - Society duly produced at page 189, placing on record that the petitioner society has total 18 members out of which, 14 members (i.e. more than 77%) of the petitioner society has consented for redevelopment and the details are duly produced at Annexure – A. Only 4 members i.e. the respondent Nos.6 to 9 (having Flat No.B-1, Flat No.B-4, Flat No.B-5 and Flat No.C-5 respectively) are not consenting to the redevelopment. 6.1 Ms. Thakore, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, further submitted that the respondent Nos.6 and 9 have vacated their respective flats and are not residing in the petitioner society and they do not care about the lives of the persons residing in the dilapidated and dangerous structures of the petitioner society. The respondent Nos.6, 8 and 9 have not paid maintenance to the society since several years. The respondent No.6 has not paid maintenance since 01.04.2019 and the respondent Nos.8 and 9 have not paid maintenance since 01.04.2020. They are thus not even contributing what they are legally liable to contribute towards the maintenance of the society. All the proposals were considered by the society for offers received by the society from the developers including that of the partner of the respondent No.9, who is currently residing and/or having the address of the office same as the society. Since the proposal was not selected by the society, the respondent No.9 has threatened the members of the society that he would ensure that the society would never be able to undergo redevelopment by any other developer. 6.2 Ms. Since the proposal was not selected by the society, the respondent No.9 has threatened the members of the society that he would ensure that the society would never be able to undergo redevelopment by any other developer. 6.2 Ms. Thakore, learned advocate, submitted that the allegation that the petitioner No.2 was removed from the post of Secretary on account of loss of trust of the members vide Resolution No.2 dated 13.03.2019, is misleading. It was submitted that after following due process of law, the petitioner No.2 approached the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Housing), Ahmedabad, who vide order dated 11.03.2020 directed appointment of Custodian. The Custodian called a special general meeting on 16.08.2020 wherein, it was unanimously resolved to constitute a Custodian Committee comprising of 3 members of the society including the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein. On application of the Custodian, the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Housing), Ahmedabad passed an order dated 18.08.2020 appointing a Custodian Committee comprising of 3 members of the society including the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein. The respondent Nos.6 and 8 preferred revision application challenging the order dated 11.03.2020 passed by the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Housing), Ahmedabad, which was rejected by the Additional Registrar (Appeal), Cooperative Societies, Gandhinagar vide order dated 28.06.2021. Thus, the petitioner No.2 in fact became a member of the Custodian Committee by virtue of the said order dated 18.08.2020 passed by the District Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Housing), Ahmedabad. In the General Meeting of the society held on 28.02.2021, the present Managing Committee comprising of 5 members including the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein, was elected uncontested. Thereafter, out of the said Managing Committee, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are made Chairman and Secretary respectively, vide Resolution passed on 03.04.2021 by the Managing Committee and vide Resolution passed in General Body Meeting held on 13.11.2022, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were elected as Chairman and Secretary for a period of 3 years. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it was reiterated that the prayers, as prayed for in the present petition, be allowed. Analysis:- 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, following emerge: 7.1 The petitioner is a co-operative housing society registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 having registration No.B-2369 of 1959. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it was reiterated that the prayers, as prayed for in the present petition, be allowed. Analysis:- 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, following emerge: 7.1 The petitioner is a co-operative housing society registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 having registration No.B-2369 of 1959. The petitioner society was constructed in 3 blocks (Block A, B and C each Block having 6 flats of different areas) in the year 1965. In all, there are total 18 flats and 18 members. Out of 18 members, respondent Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 are objecting to the redevelopment and are not signatories to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into between the other 14 members of the petitioner society and the respondent No.5 herein. 7.2 This Court has perused the report of the Structural Engineer dated 01.03.2019 duly produced at Annexure – A, page 31-43, along with the photographs duly produced at pages 36-43. One of the balcony of Block C collapsed in May, 2021 and the photographs to demonstrate the same are perused from pages 44-46. The buildings are appear to be dilapidated and ruinous condition from the perusal of the said photographs. This Court has also perused the Notices issued by the respondent – AMC dated 11.09.2018, 06.06.2019 and 19.05.2021 under Section 264 of the BPMC Act, 1949 duly produced at pages 47-49. 7.3 On 20.06.2021, 14 members out of 18 members, approved the offer of the respondent No.5 in the General Meeting, duly produced at page 100-104. Subsequent thereto, on 11.10.2021, 14 members out of 18 members executed MOU with the respondent No.5 for redevelopment of the society. The said MOU is duly produced at page 105-145. The list of consenting members is duly produced at page 189-190. The said MOU dated 11.10.2021 entered into between the parties also provides for the following amenities: a. Larger size of flats b. Lift, parking, bore, water tank etc. c. Rent clause d. Transportation cost e. Payment for furniture, fixture etc. f. General specifications g. Bank Guarantee 7.4 Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.6, 8 and 9, has raised an objection that out of 14 members, only 10 members have consented to sign the MOU. c. Rent clause d. Transportation cost e. Payment for furniture, fixture etc. f. General specifications g. Bank Guarantee 7.4 Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.6, 8 and 9, has raised an objection that out of 14 members, only 10 members have consented to sign the MOU. Considering the aforesaid objection, this Court has perused the further affidavit filed by the petitioners herein duly produced at page 189, wherein, 14 members have consented for redevelopment. 7.5 The submission made by Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.6, 8 and 9 with respect to locus of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, the same can be agitated before the Committee in a separate proceedings before the competent forum. The aforesaid has been explained by the petitioners by filing rejoinder wherein, the same is answered by stating that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are made Chairman and Secretary respectively of the Managing Committee vide Resolution passed on 03.04.2021 by the Managing Committee and vide Resolution passed in General Body Meeting held on 13.11.2022, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were elected as Chairman and Secretary for a period of 3 years. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate, was not in a position to dispute the aforesaid factual position and in view thereof, the said objection does not weigh with this Court. 7.6 This Court has also perused the documents that are produced along with the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioners. On perusal of the said documents (i) advertisement was issued in Gujarat Samachar, Time of India, Ahmedabad edition and Time of India, Mumbai edition, for the purpose of inviting offers from the developers/builders for the redevelopment. (ii) One Avasiti Design Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., a firm of Architect, expressed interest in consulting services for the petitioner society in its redevelopment. (iii) 4 builders have also submitted revised offers, which were compared and discussed, and 2 builders were shortlisted after discussion. After several meetings held by the society and its managing committee in 2021 for taking decisions in connection with the redevelopment and selection of the builder, the General Body Meeting was held on 18.04.2021. 14 members out of 18 members approved the offer of the respondent No.5 in the meeting held on 20.06.2021. From the aforesaid, it clearly emerges that the petitioner society has followed due process of law in a transparent manner for redevelopment. 14 members out of 18 members approved the offer of the respondent No.5 in the meeting held on 20.06.2021. From the aforesaid, it clearly emerges that the petitioner society has followed due process of law in a transparent manner for redevelopment. Moreover, once the majority members have consented for redevelopment as per the settled position of law, the process of redevelopment cannot be stalled for a few non-consenting members who are in minority. 8. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973, which reads thus: “41A. Re-development of flats and apartment. – Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any work in relation to the re-development of a building can be carried out on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, after obtaining the consent of not less than 75 per cent. of the flats owners of such building : Provided that, in respect of such building, - (i) a period of twenty – five years must have been completed, from the date of issuance of permission for development by the concerned Authority; or (ii) the concerned Authority has declared that such building is in ruinous condition, or likely to fall, or in any way dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by such structure or any other structure or place in the neighbourhood thereof. Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, the expression “redevelopment” shall be the meaning as assigned to it in relevant Development Control Regulations.” 9. The objections raised by the respondent Nos.6, 8 and 9 with respect to the maintainability of the present petition is no longer res-integra in light of the judgment dated 21.06.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.8530 of 2019 duly confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1075 of 2022 by order dated 23.01.2023 and the judgment dated 09.11.2023 passed in Special Civil Application No.11314 of 2022 wherein, the prayers as prayed for by the petitioners are held to be maintainable. The redevelopment is accepted and consented by more than 75% members. The redevelopment is accepted and consented by more than 75% members. 9.1 In the facts of the present case, in light of Section 41A of the Act, 1973, (i) 14 out of 18 members i.e. 77.77% members, have consented and signed the MOU; which is entered into by the petitioner society with the respondent No.5 (ii) the report of the Structural Engineer dated 01.03.2019 duly produced at Annexure – A, states that the buildings are in extremely dilapidated and dangerous condition and (iii) the building are more than 62 years old. 10. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7261 of 2022 dated 13.10.2022 in case of Bengal Secretariat Co.op. Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. vs. Sri Aloke Kumar & Anr. Paragraphs 52 to 58 of the said decision read thus: “52. It is not in dispute that the General Body of the Appellant Society, which is supreme, has taken up a conscious decision to redevelop the administrative building. The General Body of the Appellant Society has also resolved to appoint the Hi-Rise as the developer. Those decisions having not been challenged at all, the Respondent No. 1 being a member of the Appellant Society is bound by the said decisions. The General Body of the Appellant Society has approved the terms and conditions of the development agreement by overwhelming majority. Merely because the terms and conditions of the development agreement are not acceptable to the Respondent No. 1, who could be said to be in minuscule minority cannot be the basis of not to abide by the decision of the overwhelming majority of the General Body of the Appellant Society. The redevelopment of the property is necessitated in view of the fact that the building is in a dilapidated condition with passage of time. The redevelopment thus, in our view, would be a requirement and a necessity and cannot be termed as business. The Appellant Society in such circumstances did not even require to carry out any amendment to the bye-laws or to include the “redevelopment of the buildings” as one of the objects of the Society before taking any decision to redevelop its property. 53. The Appellant Society in such circumstances did not even require to carry out any amendment to the bye-laws or to include the “redevelopment of the buildings” as one of the objects of the Society before taking any decision to redevelop its property. 53. By now it is well established position that once a person becomes a member of the Co-operative Society, he loses his individuality with the Society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and bye-laws. The member has to speak through the Society or rather the Society alone can act and speaks for him qua the rights and duties of the Society as a body (see : Daman Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 670 : AIR 1985 SC 973 ). This view has been followed in the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Chheoki Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., reported in (1997) 3 SCC 681 : AIR 1997 SC 1413 . In this decision, this Court further observed that the member of a Society has no independent right qua the Society and it is the Society that is entitled to represent as the corporate aggregate. This Court also observed that the stream cannot rise higher than the source. Suffice it to observe that so long as the Resolutions passed by the General Body of the Appellant Society are in force and not overturned by a forum of competent jurisdiction, the said decisions would bind the Respondent No. 1. He cannot be permitted to take a stand alone position but is bound by the majority decision of the General Body. Notably, the Respondent No. 1 has not challenged the Resolutions passed by the General Body of the Appellant Society to redevelop the property and more so, to appoint the Hi-Rise as the Developer to give him all the redevelopment rights. 54. It was also argued on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that the property is in a good condition and there is no need to redevelop the existing building. In the first place, as noted earlier, the decision of the General Body of the Society to redevelop the subject property has not been challenged at all. 54. It was also argued on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 that the property is in a good condition and there is no need to redevelop the existing building. In the first place, as noted earlier, the decision of the General Body of the Society to redevelop the subject property has not been challenged at all. Besides, no provision in the Co-operative Societies Act or the rules or any other legal provision has been brought to our notice which would curtail the right of the Society to redevelop the property when the General Body of the Society intends to do so. Essentially, that is the commercial wisdom of the General Body of the Society. It is not open to the Court to sit over the said wisdom of the General Body as an Appellate Authority. Merely because one single member in minority disapproves of the decision, that cannot be the basis to negate the decision of the General Body, unless it is shown that the decision was the product of fraud or misrepresentation or was opposed to some statutory prohibition. That is not the grievance made before us. In the present case, the General Body took a conscious decision after due deliberations for many years to redevelop its property. Even with regard to the appointment of the “Hi- Rise” as the Developer, the record shows that it was decided by the General Body of the Society after examining the relative merits of the proposals received from the developers. 55. The object of the provision has to be borne in mind. The entire legislative scheme goes to show that the Co-operative Society is to function democratically and the internal democracy of a society, including resolutions passed in accordance with the Act, the Rules, and the bye-laws have to be respected and implemented. The Co-operative Movement is both a theory of life and a system of business. It is a form of voluntary association where individuals unite for mutual aid in the production and distribution of wealth upon principles of equity, reason and common good. It stands for distributive justice and asserts the principle of equality and equity ensuring to all those engaged in the production of wealth a share proportionately commensurate with the degree of their contribution. It stands for distributive justice and asserts the principle of equality and equity ensuring to all those engaged in the production of wealth a share proportionately commensurate with the degree of their contribution. It provides as a substitute for material assets, honesty and a sense of moral obligation and keeps in view the moral rather than the material sanction. The movement is thus a great Co-operative movement. 56. The basic principles of co-operation are that the members join as human beings and not as capitalists. The Co-operative Society is a form of organization wherein persons associate together as human beings on the basis of equality for promotion of economic interest of its members. This movement is a method of doing the business or other activities with ethical base. "Each for all and all for each" is the motto of the co-operative movement. This movement not only develops latent business capacities of its members but produces leaders; encourages economic and social virtues, honesty and loyalty, becomes imperative, prospects of better life, obtainable by concerted effort is opened up; the individual realises that there is something more to be sought than mere material gains for himself. So, in fact, it being a business cum moral movement, and the success of the Co-operative Society depends upon the reality with which one of the members work for the achievement of its objects and purpose. The Committee on Co-operation in India emphasized the moral aspect of co-operation, to quote the words:- "The theory of co-operation is very briefly that an isolated and powerless individual can, by association, with others and by moral development support, obtain in his own degree the material advantages available to wealthy or powerful persons and thereby develop himself to the fullest extent of his natural abilities. By the Union of forces, material advancement is secured and by united action self reliance is fostered and it from the inter-action of these influences that it is hoped to attain the effective realisation of the higher and more prosperous standard of life which has been characterised as better business, better arming and better living; we have found that there is a tendency not only among the outside public but also among supporters of the movement to be little its moral aspect and to regard this as superfluous idealism. Cooperation in actual practice must often fall short of the standard aimed at and details inconsistent with co- operative ideals have often to be accepted in the hope that they may lead to better things. We wish clearly to express that it is the true co- operation alone, that is, to a co-operation which recognises the moral accept of the question that Government must look for the amelioration of the masses and not to a psudo co-operative edifice, however imposing, which is built in ignorance of co- operative principles. The movement is essentially a moral one and it is individualistic rather than socialistic. It provides as a substitute for material assets honesty and a sense of moral obligation and keeps in view the moral rather than the material sanction. Pages 5 and 6 of Theory and Practice of Co-operation in India and Abroad by Kulkarni, Volume 1. Co-operation is a mode of doing business, is at present applied as the solution of many economic problems. Co-operation is harnessed to almost all forms of economic activity. Though co-operation was introduced in this country as a remedy for rural indebtedness, it has been applied successfully in a wide range of activities such as production, distribution, banking, supply, marketing, housing and insurance. See Theory and Practice of Co-operation in India and Abroad by Kulkarni Volume 1 Page 2." 57. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. At one point of time, we were inclined to allow this appeal by imposing an exemplary costs on the Respondent No. 1 for unnecessarily dragging the Appellant Society into a frivolous litigation & not allowing the Appellant Society to go ahead with the project for the past almost two decades. However, we refrain from passing such order of costs in the hope that the Respondent No. 1 realises that the development of the administrative building will be for the betterment of the society. No individual member is going to gain anything from the redevelopment. It is the society as an autonomous body which will gain something. 58. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. No individual member is going to gain anything from the redevelopment. It is the society as an autonomous body which will gain something. 58. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby set aside and it shall now be open to the Appellant Society to proceed further with its project of redevelopment in accordance with the resolutions passed by the General Body from time to time. It is needless to clarify that the first priority should be given to demolish the entire building as the same is in a dilapidated condition. 11. It is also apposite to refer to the decision dated 08.12.2023 passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1427 of 2023. Paragraphs 8 to 12 of the said decision read thus: “8. Having extensively gone through the provisions of Section 41-A read with the Rules 18 to 25 made thereunder, we record that the society for carrying out redevelopment work of the building has to follow the terms and conditions as laid down in Section 41-A which are :- (i) The building shall have completed the period of twenty-five years from the date of issuance of the development permission by the concerned authority; (ii) The concerned authority has declared the building being in ruinous condition, i.e. declared it dilapidated and dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by such structure or any other structure or place in the neighborhood thereof; (iii) Consent of not less than 75% of the members of the building for redevelopment of the building has been obtained. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that the above noted three conditions for redevelopment project/work of the building in question has been fulfilled in the instant case. No such dispute has been raised that the concerned authority has not declared the building being in ruinous condition. The only dispute raised by the appellants (fifteen numbers of the society) is that the building is not in dilapidated condition, based on an alternative report of Structural Engineer. The said issue, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, cannot be examined by us as a Court of appeal. The only dispute raised by the appellants (fifteen numbers of the society) is that the building is not in dilapidated condition, based on an alternative report of Structural Engineer. The said issue, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, cannot be examined by us as a Court of appeal. The fact remains that the concerned authority, namely the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation had issued a notice dated 19.05.2022, about three and a half years back, directing for carrying out major repairs of the building in question noticing that the building is in ruinous condition. More than 75% of the members have agreed for redevelopment and there is no dispute about the said fact. There is also no dispute about the date of development permission having been granted for the building as disclosed in the writ petition. 10. The only dispute which is being raised before us is about the procedure for redevelopment having not been followed by the concerned body of the society. In this regard we may note that a detail procedure under Rules 19 to 25 has been prescribed wherein it is provided that for making decision to undertake the redevelopment of the building, the Managing Committee or the body shall convene the special general meeting of the cooperative society or association. The Rules and the by- laws of the society with respect to convening of such meetings, such as notice, circulation of agenda items, quorum at the meetings, taking policy decisions, entering into an agreement, supplying the minutes of meeting of the members, etc. shall be applicable in the matters relating to redevelopment project. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 19 provides that the Managing Committee shall place before the general body the agenda items for taking policy decision relating to redevelopment of building; and for appointment of the Architect/ Project Management Consultant to prepare the redevelopment project. The special general body meeting shall take a decision with the consent of not less than 75% of the total members of the body for redevelopment of the building and select an Architect/Project Management Consultant to prepare the redevelopment project. The general body may authorize the Managing Committee to take all further necessary actions/steps for redevelopment project. To the above procedure, no illegality can be pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The general body may authorize the Managing Committee to take all further necessary actions/steps for redevelopment project. To the above procedure, no illegality can be pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Rule 20 further provides that the Architect / Project Management Consultant appointed by the Committee as per the decision taken at the special general meeting, shall prepare the project report within two months from the date of appointment and submit the same to the Managing Committee. The project report contains the details as mentioned therein. It is further provided that the Architect/Project Management Consultant after preparation of the project report shall invite offers from the eligible contractors/builders/company or developer. Rules 21 and 22 provide the manner in which the selection of developer is to take place. In this regard, relevant is to note that the offer given by the respondent No.3 Developer for redevelopment of the society has been considered in the meeting dated 31.12.2020 of the society and the changes were suggested in the discussion. After incorporating those changes, the final offer of respondent No.3 has been accepted on 30.03.2021. Till date, only a Memorandum of Understanding has been arrived with the respondent No.3 Developer and no Development Agreement has so far been signed. Rule 23 provides the terms and conditions to be approved in the special general body meeting of the society to enter into a Development Agreement with the developer in consultation with Architect/Project Management Consultant. The conditions to be incorporated in the Development Agreement, amongst others, shall contain the conditions laid down in Clauses (i) to (x). Rule 24 provides that the developer will not be able to make any changes in the building plan except with the written permission of the Managing Committee. The procedure for allotment of new flats has been provided in Rule 25. 11. Taking note of the above provisions of the Rules made under the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973, we are of the considered opinion that due care has been taken by the Legislature to address the concern of the appellants herein. The appellants can dispute the conditions of the Development Agreement, if not properly incorporated and shall have a right to participate in the process of development in a constructive way. The appellants can dispute the conditions of the Development Agreement, if not properly incorporated and shall have a right to participate in the process of development in a constructive way. However, 15 members out of total 96 members of the society cannot be permitted to stall the process of redevelopment only on their own suspicions and notions. There are no allegations of fraud or violation of any of the procedures prescribed in the Rules as noted hereinabove. 12. For the above reasoning in addition to the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge, we do not find it a fit case to interfere. The appeal is found devoid of merits and hence, dismissed. The appellants are directed to cooperate in the process of redevelopment of the society by giving constructive suggestions in the matter of entering of Development Agreement with the selected developer.” 12. It is also apposite to refer to the decision dated 23.01.2023 of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1075 of 2022. Paragraphs 48, 52 and 54 of the said decision read thus: “48. The contention of Mr. Oza, learned Senior Advocate that there is no provision under the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act for providing summary eviction of a non-consenting member unlike the provision under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 or The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, providing for such eviction and as such Writ Court could not have issued a Writ of Mandamus to the contesting respondents to quit and handover vacant possession of their flats, is no doubt an attractive argument which requires to be brushed aside, inasmuch as the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Binny Ltd. and Anr. versus V. Sadasivan and Others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 657 , has held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is empowered to issue Writ on the principles that it is a public law remedy and available against a body or persons performing public law function. In fact, the learned Single Judge had taken note of observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dwarka Nath versus Income Tax Officer, reported in 1965 3 SCR 536 , whereunder it has been held to the following effect: “6. In fact, the learned Single Judge had taken note of observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dwarka Nath versus Income Tax Officer, reported in 1965 3 SCR 536 , whereunder it has been held to the following effect: “6. This article is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex facie confers a wide power on the high court to reach injustice wherever it is found. The constitution designedly used a wide language in describing the nature of the power, the purposes for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised. It can issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs as understood in England; but the scope of those writs also is widened by the use of the expression "nature", for the said expression does not equate the writs that can be issued in India with the those in England, but only draws in analogy from them. That apart, High Courts can also issue directions, orders or writs other than the prerogative writs. It enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. Any attempt to equate the scope of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with that of the English courts to issue prerogative writs is to introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over the years in a comparatively small country like England with a unitary from of Government to a vast country like India functioning under a federal structure. Such a construction defeats the purpose of the article itself.” 52. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that by calling upon the occupant (respondent No.9) to vacate the premises by issuance of writ of mandamus, there is no order of eviction is passed. The resolution of the general body of members passed by the majority (now all the members having consented for redevelopment except respondent No.9) would indicate that during the period of redevelopment taking place, all the occupants of the existing property who are in occupation of their respective flats would be provided alternate accommodation in a rented premises and rent of the such premises would also be paid by the developer himself. Thus, there is no eviction or dispossession. Thus, there is no eviction or dispossession. Eviction in terms of the prevalent rent laws or ejectment of an occupant from the suit property as contemplated under the Transfer of Property Act would mean to dispossess a person in occupation of a premises under the authority of law by putting an end to such right. In other words, eviction means right to reside or occupy ceasing or such right getting terminated by operation of law. In the instant case, respondent No.9 is neither dispossessed nor evicted but has only been directed to be shifted to an alternate premises which she/they would continue to reside till redevelopment takes place. Temporary shifting of residents of a premises in redevelopment project would not amount to dispossession or eviction as sought to be contended. In fact, appellant is not deprived of the property viz. residential accommodation at all. 54. Having affixed their signatures to the resolutions and having not questioned the resolutions so passed by taking appropriate steps, respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein as well as the appellant are estopped from contending contrary to the same, inasmuch as they are bound by resolutions for which they have affixed their signatures. Hence, we are of the considered view that no prejudice is caused to the appellant or similarly placed persons as discussed in detail by the learned Single Judge vide paragraph 37. In that view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contentions raised by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant.” 13. Considering the aforesaid position of law and the facts of the present case, once the project of redevelopment is undertaken by the society and there is consent of more than 75% members as also the flats-in-question are more than 25 years old, the objections raised by the individual members are not maintainable. The project of redevelopment undertaken by the petitioner society is required to be proceeded further. The project of redevelopment undertaken by the petitioner society is required to be proceeded further. This Court deems it fit to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the decision taken for the redevelopment is in larger public interest and provides for the benefits to the house holders/flat owners and the property right of any occupier would not be affected and every occupier will get a new unit against their occupation and in the opinion of this Court, in the redevelopment process when almost all the members, except 4 members, have given consent for redevelopment, at the instance of the 4 members, the consent of the majority members should not suffer. 14. At the cost of repetition, it is required to be observed that the construction of the building is old and damaged and the report of the Structural Engineer dated 01.03.2019 also states that the building is in dilapidated condition, under such circumstances, in the interest of the residents of the building/flats, the decision of redevelopment appears to be taken in good faith and such process cannot be stalled at the instance of the 4 members who objected to such redevelopment for their personal grievances. 15. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.1427 of 2023 by order dated 08.12.2023, has extensively explained the procedure of redevelopment under Rules 19 to 25 in paragraph 10 of the said order wherein, the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that it is only at the stage of MOU between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 and no development agreement has so far been signed. Rule 23 provides the terms and conditions to be approved in the special general body meeting of the society to enter into a development agreement with the developer in consultation with Architect/Project Management Consultant. The conditions to be incorporated in the Development Agreement, amongst others, shall contain the conditions laid down in Clauses (i) to (x). Rule 24 provides that the developer will not be able to make any changes in the building plan except with the written permission of the Managing Committee. The procedure for allotment of new flats has been provided in Rule 25. Taking note of the aforesaid provisions, the Hon’ble Division Bench held that due care has been taken by the Legislature to address the concern of the appellants therein. The procedure for allotment of new flats has been provided in Rule 25. Taking note of the aforesaid provisions, the Hon’ble Division Bench held that due care has been taken by the Legislature to address the concern of the appellants therein. The appellants can dispute the conditions of the Development Agreement, if not properly incorporated and shall have a right to participate in the process of development in a constructive way. 16. In light of the aforesaid discussion and the ratio as referred above, the respondent Nos.6,7,8 and 9 being members of the society and loose their individual rights to challenge the decision of the society for and except, through the society. The eviction or dispossession is not in terms of prevalent rent laws or eviction as contemplated under the Transfer of Property Act. In the facts of the present case, the respondent Nos.6,7,8 and 9 would neither be dispossessed or evicted but are required to shift the alternate premises in which the respondent Nos.6, 8 and 9 would continue to reside till the redevelopment is undertaken. The temporary shifting for the purpose of redevelopment would not amount to dispossession or eviction. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is required to be considered under Section 41A of the Act, 1973. The petitioner society meets with and complies with the conditions enumerated under Section 41A of the Act, 1973. In view of the aforesaid, if the petitioner society decided to go for redevelopment, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere in the said redevelopment process. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, the prayers as prayed for in the present petition, are required to be allowed and the same are allowed. The respondent Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 are directed to vacate their respective flats in the petitioner No.1 society and handover the peaceful and vacant possession thereof for the redevelopment as per Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order and cooperate in the redevelopment of the petitioner No.1 Society. 19. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute.