JUDGMENT : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. Mr. Bharat T. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner No.1- Society seeks permission to delete the present respondent no.5. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. The Registry is directed to delete the respondent no.5. 2. By way of the Civil Application (for Direction) No.1 of 2024 in the present petition, Mr. Bharat T. Rao, learned advocate prays that the present petitioner no.2 to be transposed as respondent no.6 in the main petition. This Court by even dated order, i.e. on 30.08.2024, allowed the said Civil Application. 3. Heard Mr. Bharat T. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner-society, Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 3– State, Ms. Ritu R. Guru, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 – Corporation, Mr. Kamlesh B. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent no.4 and Mr. Daxay Patel, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent no.6 – M/s. Suryam Developers (transposed from petitioner no.2). 4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Petition reads thus: 4.1. The petitioner herein is a registered cooperative society registered under the provision of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 vide registration no. 7024 dated 04.05.1978. There are in all total 96 flats in the petitioner society, which is known as ‘Bhavna Flats’ situated at Narayan Nagar Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad. The society has constructed flats on the land bearing Final Plot No. 319 of T.P. Scheme No. 22 of Mouje: Vasna admeasuring 6877 sq.yards i.e. 5750 sq.mtrs. 4.2. It is the case of the petitioner society that extraordinary general meeting was called on 22.09.2019, pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent no.2 – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) on 09.09.2019 under Section 264 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 because of dilapidated conditions of the flats. In the said extraordinary general meeting of the petitioner no.1 society, it was resolved that the society should be redeveloped, instead of, repairing. 4.3. In the said extraordinary general meeting of the petitioner no.1 society, it was resolved that the society should be redeveloped, instead of, repairing. 4.3. The petitioner society has sought for opinion from the structural engineer, viz., Multi Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and the same has been given by the said company on 27.07.2019 and prior thereto, the Chartered Engineer has visited the petitioner society on 04.07.2019 and 09.07.2019, wherein, it is opined that the society is not safe and looking to the condition of the structure, the Chartered Engineer did not recommend to reside in the society and that there are chances of major casualty. The aforesaid report of the structural engineer dated 27.07.2019 is duly produced at Annexure-F. 4.4. When the resolution was finalized by the petitioner society on 26.01.2020 in the annual general meeting, the petitioner society passed the resolution and objectors names were also mentioned in the said resolution. The said resolution for redevelopment was passed by 3/4th majority and approval to the proposal of present respondent no.6 – M/s. Suryam Developers was reiterated as a developer. The development agreement came to be executed between the developer – respondent no.6 herein and the society – petitioner herein. The petitioner society and respondent no.6 – developer prepared the MOU, which came to be executed with each members of the society. 4.5. In the course of hearing, Mr. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that out of total 96 members, 95 members have consented for the redevelopment as on date. The list showing the details of members of the society and the status of execution of MOU by individual members, duly produced at Annexure-I. It is submitted that, 6 members of the petitioner society including the respondent no.4 herein approached the Board of Nominees Court, Ahmedabad by filing Lavad Suit No. 165 of 2020, which came to be rejected by judgment and order dated 17.08.2022, which is duly produced at Annexure-L. 4.6. The said judgment passed by the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad is the subject matter of Appeal before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad being Appeal No. 59 of 2022 preferred by only respondent no.4, which is pending before the Tribunal. 4.7. The petitioner herein has entered into registered development agreement on 29.03.2022 which has been registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad-4, Paldi, Ahmedabad vide registration no. 5537. 4.7. The petitioner herein has entered into registered development agreement on 29.03.2022 which has been registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ahmedabad-4, Paldi, Ahmedabad vide registration no. 5537. The respondent no.6 herein has paid Rs.57,36,000/- towards stamp duty on the said agreement. It is the case of the petitioner that because of the objections raised by the respondent no. 4 by not entering the MOU with the petitioner, the respondent no.2 had addressed legal notice to the respondent no. 4 on 18.05.2023. The respondent no. 4, though received the said notice, did not reply to the same nor entered into the MOU with the petitioner society and developer - respondent no.6 herein. 4.8. In view of the aforesaid, petitioner herein is constrained to approach this Court, mainly on the ground that under the provision of Section 41 of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973, consent of the 75% members is necessary for redevelopment. In the facts of the present case, out of 96 flat holders, 95 flat holders have entered into MOU with the petitioner society and respondent – developer, for redevelopment. Thus, there is consent of more than 98% flat holders in the present case. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, the building is more than 35 years old and is in dilapidated condition. 4.9. By way of the present Petition, the petitioner herein seeks for the following reliefs: “32. Taking into consideration the above grounds and others that may be urged at the time of hearing, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased: (a) To admit and allow this petition; (b) To issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent nos.4 & 5 or the present owners/occupiers of the Flat No. X/1 of Bhavna Flats and Flat No.W/4 of Bhavna Flats to forthwith vacate their respective flats possessed by them and enter into MOU with petitioner nos.1 & 2 within one week so that work of redevelopment of Bhavna Flats can proceed further for the reasons stated in the Memo of Petition and in the interest of justice. Annex H (c) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent no.2 & 3 to evict the respondent nos.4 & 5 respondent nos.4 & 5 or the present owners/ occupiers of the Flat No.X/1 of Bhavna Flats and Flat No.W/4 of Bhavna Flats to forthwith vacate their respective flats possessed by them and hand over peaceful and vacant possession thereof to petitioner nos. 1 & 2 so that work of redevelopment of Bhavna Flats can proceed further for the reasons stated in the Memo of Petition Annex-H and in the interest of justice. (d) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondent nos. 4 & 5 or the present owners/occupiers of the respective flats to forthwith vacate the respective flats possessed by them and enter into MOU with petitioner nos. 1 & 2 and to forthwith hand over peaceful and vacant possession of their respective flats so that work of redevelopment of Bhavna Flats can proceed further for the reasons stated in the Memo of Petition and in the interest of justice. (e) Your Lordships may Grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause Para-32(d) above. (f) Your Lordships may pass such other and further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.” 5.1. Mr. Bharat T. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein upon notice issued by the respondent no.2 – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) held the meeting by the petitioner society, wherein, it was resolved to go for redevelopment of the flats in question, rather than going for repairing of the building. In light of the aforesaid, in the Annual General Meeting (AGM), it was resolved to appoint the present respondent no.6 as developer of the petitioner society. It is submitted that, it is not in dispute that, out of 96 flat members, 95 flat members have already given their consent, as also the building is more than 35 years old. 5.2. Mr. It is submitted that, it is not in dispute that, out of 96 flat members, 95 flat members have already given their consent, as also the building is more than 35 years old. 5.2. Mr. Rao, learned advocate placed reliance on the report of the structural engineer, which is duly produced at Anenxure-F, Pg-35, which is dated 27.07.2019, wherein, the aforesaid report of the structural engineer recommend that looking to the condition of the structure, it will not be recommend to reside in these premises and it could be dangerous for human being or may be there are chances for major causality. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that in the interest of the owners of the flats in question the redevelopment be carried-out. 6.1. Mr. Kamlesh Patel, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent no.4 submits that the appeal is filed by the respondent no.4 herein challenging the order passed by the Board of Nominees rejecting the Lavad Suit No. 165 of 2020. It is submitted that the parties be relegated to the competent authority, where the Appeal No. 59 of 2022 is pending. 6.2. In light of the aforesaid, Mr. Patel, learned advocate submitted that when the statutory remedy is available, the parties are required to be relegated to the same. 6.3. Mr. Kamlesh Patel, learned advocate placed reliance on the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973 and the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It is submitted that the provision of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973 does not prevail over the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It is submitted that the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973 does not apply to the housing society registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. 6.4. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the reliefs as prayed for in the present Petition may not be granted. 7. Mr. Daxay Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.6 – developer submits that the respondent no.6 has entered into with the MOU and agreement with the individual members of the flats and the respondent no.6 is strictly adhering to the conditions mentioned therein. Mr. Patel, learned advocate further submitted that the respondent no.6 support the petitioner herein, and he has no objection, if the prayers, as prayed for, are allowed. 8.1. In rejoinder, Mr. Mr. Patel, learned advocate further submitted that the respondent no.6 support the petitioner herein, and he has no objection, if the prayers, as prayed for, are allowed. 8.1. In rejoinder, Mr. Bharat T. Rao, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner herein submits that once the society resolves to go for redevelopment, the individual member loses his right to challenge the redevelopment. It is reiterated that except the private respondent no.4 herein, all the members have consented for the redevelopment. It is submitted that the process of redevelopment is not in the nature of eviction as held by the Hon’ble Division Bench Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1427 of 2023. It is for a temporary period that the members are required to evict the premises, but it is not in terms of definition of Transfer of Property Act. 8.2. In light of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the aforesaid contention raised by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.4 is such that the same may not be considered. ANALYSIS: 9.1. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the petitioner herein is a cooperative society registered under the provision of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 vide registration no. 7024 dated 04.05.1978. Out of 96 flat members, 95 flat members have given consent for the redevelopment of the society, in the decision taken by the petitioner society in the annual general meeting, vide resolution dated 03.06.2018. The aforesaid decision was arrived at by the petitioner society, upon issuance of the notice by the respondent no.2 under Section 264 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, because the condition of the flats/ society is in dilapidated conditions. Thereupon, it was resolved by the society to go for the redevelopment, rather than repairing. This Court has perused the report of the structural engineer, which is duly produced at Annexure-F, Pg.35, wherein, upon perusal of the said report dated 27.07.2019, it is certified that the Chartered Engineer AM162094-3, AMC License No. SD 0592190223 that the condition of the building is dangerous and is such that there are chances of major casualty. During the inspection, it is observed that cantilever portion of structure, balcony, slabs are in deteriorate conditions. The slabs are falling and dangerous for living person with in the premises. The cracks, leakages from wall and ceiling are in all blocks of the society. During the inspection, it is observed that cantilever portion of structure, balcony, slabs are in deteriorate conditions. The slabs are falling and dangerous for living person with in the premises. The cracks, leakages from wall and ceiling are in all blocks of the society. 9.2. The members of the petitioner society, respondent no.6 – developer has entered into the MOU with the individual members of the petitioner society on 23.10.2019, copy of which is duly produced at Anenxure-H. 9.3. Upon perusal of the same, it emerges that the aforesaid is duly signed by 88 members of the society, at the relevant point of time. In the course of hearing as referred above, this Court is informed that out of 96 members, 95 members have consented and only one member, i.e. respondent no.4 herein, has raised objection with regard to the redevelopment of the society. 9.4. It appears that six of the non-consenting members / objectors including the respondent no.4 herein preferred Lavad Suit No. 165 of 2020 before the learned Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad, wherein, by way of interim order, status-quo was granted by the learned Board of Nominees. The same was challenged before the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application No. 42 of 2020, whereby, the Tribunal was vacated the said relief. 9.5. The said order was challenged by the said six non- consenting members / objectors before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 12958 of 2021 and Special Civil Application No. 12959 of 2021, wherein, the both the petitions have been dismissed by order dated 14.10.2021. 9.6. The aforesaid order dated 14.10.2021 was the subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 120 of 2022 and 122 of 2022, wherein, by order dated 08.02.2022, the appeals filed by the six objectors were also dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. 10.1. In light of the aforesaid undisputed facts that emerge for consideration of this Court, it is apposite to refer to Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats (Amendment) Act, 2018, 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. 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 have the meaning as assigned to it in relevant Development Control Regulations.” 10.2. In light of Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats (Amendment) Act, 2018, in the facts of the present case, out of 96 members, 95 members have consented and singed the MOU and the development agreement is also entered into between the petitioners and the members of the flat. Further, the report of the Structural Engineer dated 27.07.2019 duly produced at page- 35 stating that the buildings are in extremely dilapidated and dangerous condition and the construction of flats of the petitioner society are more than 35 years old. The development agreement is duly produced at page-267. The same is entered into upon certain terms and conditions, which are duly produced at page- 271 to 289. The aforesaid is registered before the office of the Sub Registrar, Paldi by Registration No. 5337, the same is duly produced at page-292. Upon perusal of the aforesaid, further only 1 member is objecting to the redevelopment. Once the society resolves the redevelopment, the single member of the society loses the right to object the said redevelopment. 10.3. 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 reads thus: “52. 10.3. 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 reads 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. 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 ). 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 v. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 10.4. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 10.5. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 7261 of 2022 dated 13.10.2022 (supra) was dealing with the identical issue of redevelopment of a cooperative society, wherein, it is held that no provision in the Cooperative Societies Act or the Rules or any other legal provision would curtail the right of the society to redevelop the property, when the general body of the Society intends to do so. Essentially, the same is the commercial wisdom of the general body of the Society. Further, it is not open for the Court to sit over the said wisdom of the general body as an Appellate Authority. Merely, because one single member disapproves of the said decision, that cannot be the basis to negate the decision of the general body, unless, there is any fraud or misrepresentation or opposed to any such statutory prohibition. Further, it is not open for the Court to sit over the said wisdom of the general body as an Appellate Authority. Merely, because one single member disapproves of the said decision, that cannot be the basis to negate the decision of the general body, unless, there is any fraud or misrepresentation or opposed to any such statutory prohibition. The entire legislative scheme goes to show that the Cooperative 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. Therefore, the contention raised by Mr. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.4- objector regarding the provision of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973 does not prevail over the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, is no longer res-integra, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as referred above. 12. Considering the aforesaid position of law and the facts of the present case as well as reasons stated herein-above, at the cost of repetition, it is required to be observed that the building in question is a dilapidated condition and the report of the Structural Engineer also states that the aforesaid would result into major casualty. In the opinion of this Court, for an objection raised by only one member, the redevelopment should not be stalled. The Hon’ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1427 of 2023 vide order dated 08.12.2023 has extensively explained the procedure of redevelopment under Rule-9 to 25 in para-10 and looking to the facts of the present case, the parties have also entered into development agreement and the said agreement is duly registered before the office of the Sub Registrar and in view thereof, the parties would be bound by the conditions stipulated in the said development agreement, if any of the flat owner is not in agreement with the conditions, which is not properly incorporated, it is always open for such party to participate in the development in the constructive way. 13. In light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the ratio as referred above, the prayers as prayed for in the present petition are required to be allowed. The Appeal proceedings which are pending before the appellate Court are independent proceedings, against the society, with respect to the allotment under the redevelopment process. 13. In light of the aforesaid discussion and in light of the ratio as referred above, the prayers as prayed for in the present petition are required to be allowed. The Appeal proceedings which are pending before the appellate Court are independent proceedings, against the society, with respect to the allotment under the redevelopment process. In the opinion of this Court, the redevelopment cannot be stalled on the ground that the Appeal is pending before the appellate forum/ Tribunal, at the instance of 1 flat owner. Further, the parties will be bound by the final outcome of the said appeal pending before the Tribunal. 14. In the facts of the present case, the Development Agreement is also entered into between the parties. Even otherwise, the project will have to be registered with RERA wherein, the promoter would be bound by the said rules and regulations, which would also satisfy the apprehension of the respondent – objector. Further, the developer-respondent no.6 herein has stated in support of the petitioner that he has no objection, if the prayers, as prayed for, are allowed. 15. For the forgoing reasons, the prayers as prayed for in the present petition, are required to be allowed and the same are allowed. The respondent no.4 herein is directed to vacate the flat in the petitioner society and handover the peaceful and vacant possession thereof, for the redevelopment as per Section 41A of the Gujarat Ownership Flats (Amendment) Act, 2018 within a period of 12 (twelve) weeks from the date of receipt of the order and cooperate in the redevelopment of the petitioner society. 16. With the aforesaid, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article-226 of the constitution of India, the present Petition stands ALLOWED. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.