JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs : “A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this Petition; B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writs, direction or order to the Respondent No. 1-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation to execute and implement notices issued under Section 264(1) Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations, 1949 (Annexure-A Collectively) as well as further be pleased to issue appropriate orders against Respondents to vacate their respective flats/units situated in Petitioner Society and also to handover peaceful possession to Respondent No.2- Developer for commencement of project of Redevelopment in the interest of justice; C. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and/or directions to the Respondent No. 1 for implementation and execution of the Scheme for Redevelopment of Petitioner Society as awarded in favour of the Respondent No.2-Developers in the interest of justice; D. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to initiate proceedings under Sections 260 and 268 of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 against those Respondents who have not only made illegal construction but are also running unauthorised commercial business in residential premises without any prior authorization; E. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 1 to initiate the actions against the Private Respondents vacating the premises and/or their respective units and further may be pleased to direct the Private Respondents to not to obstruct the process of Redevelopment project of Petitioner Society as granted in favour of Respondent No.2- Developer situated at Survey No.6, Moje Village: Vasana, Ahmedabad District in the interest of justice; F. Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further orders necessary in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner is a co-operative housing society registered under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 vide registration No.10806/1984 dated 03.08.1984. The petitioner society purchased the land bearing the Town Planning Scheme No.26, Final Plot No.280, Survey No.6 situated at Mouje : village Vasana, Ahmedabad by way of registered sale deed dated 06.04.1985 and further, the necessary permissions for building construction was granted by the competent authority. The building use permission has been granted 25.10.1985. The petitioner society purchased the land bearing the Town Planning Scheme No.26, Final Plot No.280, Survey No.6 situated at Mouje : village Vasana, Ahmedabad by way of registered sale deed dated 06.04.1985 and further, the necessary permissions for building construction was granted by the competent authority. The building use permission has been granted 25.10.1985. The petitioner society is known as “the Shilpalaya Co-operative Housing Society Limited’. 2.1 The construction of the flats is more than 30 years old and the towers situated in the petitioner society have severely damaged and further in need of renovation work since 2014. Thus, it was decided in the meeting held by the majority members of the petitioner society to proceed for redevelopment of the society by some recognized and experienced Developer as early as possible so that no introvert incident takes place in future. 2.2 On 24.06.2014, the petitioner society issued a Circular for organizing a meeting of members of the society on 06.07.2014, so as to discuss the agenda for redevelopment of society. On 06.07.2014, the petitioner society and its members have passed a Resolution and further decided to form Managing/Development Committee for the purpose of taking all decision with regard to the project of redevelopment of the society. Copies of the Circular dated 24.06.2014 as well as Resolution dated 06.07.2014 are duly annexed at Annexure – C colly. Thereafter, on 11.07.2014, the petitioner society formed a Managing Committee consisting of 23 members. Further, several offers/proposal were received on behalf of few developers for the redevelopment project. The petitioner society on receipt of the offers has held several meetings and passed necessary Resolutions to the said effect. Copy of the list of Committee for redevelopment dated 11.07.2014 is duly annexed at Annexure – D and copies of relevant circulars as well as Resolutions passed by the petitioner society are duly annexed at Annexure – E colly. 2.3 The petitioner society had initially approached the respondent No.2 – Developer M/s. Prerna Infrabuild Ltd. and provided a preliminary proposal dated 4/5.02.2016 for the purpose of redevelopment. On 13.02.2016, the respondent No.2 has provided counter-offer to the petitioner society and based on that a circular was issued by the petitioner society to hold next meeting on 14.02.2016. 2.4 On 14.02.2016, the petitioner society orally informed all the Developers to submit revised offer for the project of redevelopment on or before 20.02.2016. On 13.02.2016, the respondent No.2 has provided counter-offer to the petitioner society and based on that a circular was issued by the petitioner society to hold next meeting on 14.02.2016. 2.4 On 14.02.2016, the petitioner society orally informed all the Developers to submit revised offer for the project of redevelopment on or before 20.02.2016. On 20.02.2016, the petitioner society received a final offer only from the respondent No.2 - M/s. Prerna Infrabuild Ltd. and the same had been primarily accepted after having discussions and consultations in the meeting dated 21.02.2016. 2.5 On 02.03.2016, the petitioner society decided to execute Agreement/MOUs between the members of the petitioner society and the respondent No.2 - M/s. Prerna Infrabuild Ltd.. Copies of the Circular dated 28.02.2016 and the Resolution dated 02.03.2016 are duly annexed at Annexure - L colly. The petitioner society vide Resolution dated 27.03.2016 has accepted the final offer dated 20.02.2016 offered by the respondent No.2 Developer - M/s. Prerna Infrabuild Ltd., duly produced at Annexure – N. 2.6 The petitioner society through its Chairman and Secretary on 26.04.2016 has executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which was signed by 201 flats members out of total 216 flats members with the respondent No.2 – Developer. Thereafter, again on 03.05.2016, a Memorandum of Understanding has been executed between the petitioner society with the respondent No.2 which was signed by 10 flats members., further reaching a total of 211 members out of 228 members. Thereafter, again on 08.03.2018, the petitioner society for and on behalf of its flats members, entered into a supplementary Memorandum of Understanding with the respondent No.2 whereby, the period for commencing the redevelopment project has been extended for indefinite period. Copies of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 26.04.2016, 03.05.2016 and 08.03.2018 are duly annexed at Annexure – O colly. 2.7 The petitioner society has published a public advertisement dated 19.06.2016 in leading newspapers with regard to the appointment as well as acceptance of final offer given by the respondent No.2 - M/s. Prerna Infrabuild Ltd., duly produced at Annexure – P. The petitioner society has issued a public notice dated 03.09.2018 in daily newspaper ‘Divya Bhaskar’ for the purpose of obtaining Title Clearance prior to commencement work of redevelopment. Further, on the basis of aforesaid advertisement, few members have issued legal notice principally objecting to the project of redevelopment of the society and further, the said notices were dealt with a detailed replied issued on behalf of the petitioner society. On 24.11.2018, it was resolved by the majority of members belonging to the petitioner society and passed Resolution to the effect that as per the terms and conditions of the MOUs as executed between the members of the Society and Developer, peaceful and vacant possession of all flats be handed over to the respondent No.2 on or before 15.03.2019, duly produced at Annexure – U. Thereafter, Agreements have been executed between the members of the petitioner society and respondent No.2 whereby, it has been agreed by the respondent No.2 to made payment of Rs.15000/- as advance money to members for the purpose of alternative arrangement. 2.8 Thereafter, one of the members of the society namely Nileshkumar Sagarmal Jain – respondent No.12 herein has instituted a Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No.665 of 2019 for injunction and the same has been withdrawn unconditionally. That, another Civil Suit being Civil Suit No.1728 of 2019 was instituted by the respondent No.12 for declaration and injunction which is pending as on date. Copies of the plaints of the Civil Suits duly produced at Annexure – W colly. 2.9 On 08.08.2016, a Structural Engineer namely Sarjan Consultants, having completed inspection of site prepared a report wherein, it is stringly recommended to initiate immediate action for repairing and/or rebuilding the residential premises as the damages seen are life threatening. It is also mentioned and observed that work of repairing and/or renovation would be extremely time consuming and also would not provide efficient strength and therefore, it is suggested that the buildings be demolished and rebuild. However, on frequent objections taken by the private respondents, no further action and/or compliance could have been initiate in respect of the aforesaid suggestions/recommendations made in the report. 2.10 On 24.01.2020, the Deputy Estate Officer of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation issued a Notice under Section 264(1) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act for removal of structure/construction which has been hazardous and/or dangerous. 2.10 On 24.01.2020, the Deputy Estate Officer of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation issued a Notice under Section 264(1) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act for removal of structure/construction which has been hazardous and/or dangerous. It is for this reason also that there is some urgency with regard to the redevelopment of the entire society since the whole structure of the society has become dangerous to the life of residents residing in the society. However, the private respondents herein are objecting to the redevelopment for no valid reasons and therefore, the respondent No.2 is not able to commence further work of redevelopment. 2.11 In the aforesaid set of facts, the petitioner herein is constrained to approach this Court seeking the reliefs as referred above. 3. Mr. P.S. Chandra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.7 and 8, submitted that the respondent No.6 has taken NOC and therefore, Mr. Chandra, learned advocate, does not have instructions to appear for and on behalf of the respondent No.6. 3.1 Heard Mr. Anshin Desai, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Deep D. Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1, Mr. P.S. Chandra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.7 and 8, Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.15, Mr. Manan Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.16 and Mr. Valimohammed Pathan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.32 along with the learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents. 4. Mr. Anshin Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the first meeting for redevelopment was held on 24.06.2014. A redevelopment committee consisting of 23 members came to be constituted for suggestions on 11.07.2014. Since the construction of the residential buildings are old in nature i.e. more than 30 years old and in dilapidated condition endangering life of the members of the society, the petitioner society has resolved to go for redevelopment. Placing reliance on (2013) 6 SCC 538 in case of Margaret Almeida & Ors. etc. vs. Bombay Catholic Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice and/or act at the instance of minority of members who are in habit of raising frivolous objections and also causes obstacles in the path of redevelopment which has been granted in accordance with law. etc. vs. Bombay Catholic Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice and/or act at the instance of minority of members who are in habit of raising frivolous objections and also causes obstacles in the path of redevelopment which has been granted in accordance with law. It was submitted that the project for betterment of the society has come to a stop due to the respondents who in-fact consented for the redevelopment project and have now shown volt face against the said project of redevelopment. It was submitted that the project for redevelopment of the petitioner society has been approved and accepted after taking into consideration other offers as received by the petitioner society from time to time. 4.1 Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that more than 80% of members have consented for the redevelopment project. It was submitted that the project of redevelopment is awarded to the respondent No.2 – Developer after several round of negotiations as also considering the overall interest of the members of the society in terms of facilities and amenities offered by the respondent No.2 – Developer. It was submitted that the new residential premises for the families, who cannot easily afford new residential premises in adjacent areas, would get better and spacious houses in the same vicinity; they have been residing since decades gaining them the comfort and good quality of life. 4.2 Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the petitioner society has also received a Notice under Section 264(1) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, declaring the construction of the buildings in dilapidated condition as well as needs immediate restrengthening/restructuring/repairing of it. The buildings and the whole structure has been declared hazardous to reside by the competent authority and in the interest of everyone, the redevelopment of the society can be undertaken which otherwise is in accordance with law. 4.3 Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the report of the Structural Engineer strongly recommends for immediate action required to be initiated by the petitioner society for repair and/or rebuild of buildings as the damages seen are life threatening. The said report also strengthens the case of the petitioner society for redevelopment as it categorically states that the buildings are required to be demolished and rebuild. The said report also strengthens the case of the petitioner society for redevelopment as it categorically states that the buildings are required to be demolished and rebuild. It was submitted that in view of the objections raised by the private respondents, the respondent No.2 has not been able to commence further work of redevelopment. 5. Mr. P.S. Chandra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.7 and 8, submitted that the respondent Nos.7 and 8 technically speaking, have no objection to the redevelopment of the society provided that it is in transparent and legal manner. It was submitted that the respondent No.2 herein i.e. M/s. Prerna Infrabuild Limited, has been short listed by the petitioner society without following due process of law. It was submitted that the respondents apprehend manipulation with respect to the cost during the process of redevelopment. It was submitted that it is an internal dispute between the Managing Committee and the members of the society for which, no interference is called for to exercise writ jurisdiction. 5.1 Mr. Chandra, learned advocate, submitted that the petitioner herein ought to have approached the Board of Nominees/Registrar of Co-operative Society for resolution of dispute between the members and the Managing Committee and that, the petition be dismissed accordingly. It was submitted that to the best of the knowledge of the respondent Nos.7 and 8, the entire area of the society is 12,378 sq. yards, out of which, the Managing Committee is planning to construct 14 storey 10 towers building for members and the future buyers. The total FSI available to the Managing Committee is around 49512 sq. yards. To the best of the knowledge of the respondents, total number of additional flats which can be constructed in the present FSI, is around 880 numbers of flats with additional for which there is no proposal either by the Managing Committee or by the respondent No.2 – Developer because the respondent No.2 will be utilizing additional FSI above 14th storey in other commercial project by transferring the FSI from the petitioner society to other society. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it was submitted that there is no clarity either by the Managing Committee or by the respondent No.2 herein. 5.2 Mr. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it was submitted that there is no clarity either by the Managing Committee or by the respondent No.2 herein. 5.2 Mr. Chandra, learned advocate, submitted that though there is a majority of 75% of the members of the society, the majority decision is required to be followed by Rules and Bylaws of the society. In light of the aforesaid, it was submitted that the respondents would co-operate the redevelopment if the offer for redevelopment is duly invited from the open market following due process of law in presence of the Court Commissioner appointed by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies to filter and screen the proposal for redevelopment in consultation with the members of the society in transparent manner. 6. Mr. Anshin Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterated the contentions and submitted that the petitioner society has followed due process of law by issuing public advertisement dated 19.06.2016 in Gujarat Samachar, Sandesh and Divya Bhaskar and thereafter, the offer of the respondent No.2 was accepted. The due procedure has been followed by the petitioner society in accordance with Gujarat Ownership Flats (Amendment) Act, 2018. It was also reiterated that the respondent Corporation has also issued Notice under Section 264(1) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. The Structural Engineer report dated 08.08.2016 also states that the state of the buildings are in dilapidated and dangerous condition. 7. Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.15, submitted that as such there is no objection with respect to the project of redevelopment however, submitted that commercial shops be allotted to the respondent No.15. 8. Replying to the objection raised by the respondent No.15, Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that objector/s member cannot be given commercial shop in residential society, the same not being permissible under the law. It was submitted that the other objections raised by the respondent No.15 and other respondents, are duly answered at page 99 of the memo of petition being offer of redevelopment provided by the respondent No.2, due procedure having been followed by the petitioner society and that, there is no discrimination and inequality caused to any of the member/s. In fact, all the members are provided surplus area then the existing unit. In light of the aforesaid, it was submitted that the prayers as prayed for in the present petition be allowed. 9. Mr. In light of the aforesaid, it was submitted that the prayers as prayed for in the present petition be allowed. 9. Mr. Manan Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.16 and Mr. Valimohammed Pathan, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.32, have adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. P.S. Chandra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.7, 8 and Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.15. 10. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, following emerge: 10.1 The petitioner society is a duly registered Co-operative society under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The petitioner society purchased the land bearing final plot No.280, survey No.6 situated at village : Vasna, Ahmedabad by registered sale deed dated 06.05.1985. 10.2 The building use permission was granted on 25.10.1985 by the competent authority. The buildings are now 36 years old. The construction work of the petitioner society is more than 30 years old. 10.3 The petitioner society consists of 228 members. Out of 228 members, 218 members have consented for the commencement of project of redevelopment. 10.4 The petitioner society has the Structural Engineers report and observations dated 08.08.2016 which are perused by this Court wherein, it is stated that the buildings are in dilapidated and dangerous condition. 10.5 The respondent – Corporation has also issued Notice dated 24.01.2020 under Section 264(1) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, declaring the construction of the buildings in dilapidated condition as well as needs immediate restrengthening/restructuring/repairing of it. 11. At this stage, 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 redevelopment 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 redevelopment 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.” 12. In light of Section 41A of the Act, 2018, in the facts of the present case (i) 218 out of 228 members i.e. 87.16% members have consented and signed the MOU which is entered into by the petitioner with the respondent No.2 (ii) the report of the Structural Engineer dated 08.08.2016 duly produced at 457 stating that the buildings are in extremely dilapidated and dangerous condition and (iii) the buildings are more than 30 years old. 13. This Court has also perused the procedure adopted by the petitioner society. It is apposite to refer to relevant dates and particulars, which read thus: Dates Particulars Page No. 24.06.2014 The petitioner society issued 1st Circular for redevelopment. 80-89 11.07.2014 A committee for redevelopment of 23 members constituted for suggestions. 90 04.02.2016 Petitioner society gave proposal to the developer. 97-98 13.02.2016 The respondent No.2 – Developer gave preliminary offer to the petitioner society 99-103 20.02.2016 The respondent No.2 – Developer gave final offer to the petitioner society. 106-111 21.02.2016 Petitioner Society passed Resolution for acceptance of final offer of the respondent No.2 – Developer. 112 27.03.2016 A Resolution came to be passed by the Managing Committee of the petitioner society for accepting the offer of respondent No.2 which was duly signed by the 191 members of the society. 106-111 21.02.2016 Petitioner Society passed Resolution for acceptance of final offer of the respondent No.2 – Developer. 112 27.03.2016 A Resolution came to be passed by the Managing Committee of the petitioner society for accepting the offer of respondent No.2 which was duly signed by the 191 members of the society. 116-128 26.04.2016 The petitioner society through its Chairman and Secretary has executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which was signed by 201 flats members out of total 216 flats members with the respondent No.2 – Developer. 129 03.05.2016 2nd Memorandum of Understanding Commercial has been executed between the petitioner society with the respondent No.2 which was signed by 10 members, further reaching a total of 211 members out of 228 members. 190 08.03.2018 3rd Memorandum of Understanding came to be executed between the petitioner society with the respondent No.2. 210 19.06.2016 The petitioner society published advertisement in Gujarat Samachar, Sandesh and Divya Bhaskar and bids were invited whereby, respondent No.2 – M/s. Prerna Infrabuild Ltd 222 08.08.2016 Structural Engineer namely Sarjan Consultants, having completed inspection of site prepared a report along with observations 444-460 07.03.2017 Written application to police authority against the objectors 223-225 03.09.2018 The petitioner society has issued a public notice in daily newspaper ‘Divya Bhaskar’ for the purpose of obtaining Title Clearance prior to commencement work of redevelopment. 226 06.09.2018 & 10.09.2018 Objections came to be taken by 19 members against the public notice dated 03.09.2019 227-301 15.10.2018 The petitioner society replied to 10 members against their objections in respect of the public notice dated 03.09.2018 302-336 24.11.2018 The petitioner society called for General Meeting regarding allotment and handing over possession of the unit, advance rent etc. 337-339 19.04.2019 Agreement came to be executed between the society and the respondent No.2 340-341 10.05.2019 The respondent No.12 – Nileshkumar S. Jain instituted Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No.665 of 2019 which came to be withdrawn unconditionally. 342-443 24.01.2020 Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation issued a Notice under Section 264(1) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act for removal of structure/construction which has been hazardous and/or dangerous 43-78 02.09.2020 Petitioner society gave reply to said Notice issued under Section 264(1) of the Act. 463-479 25.09.2020 Petitioner society passed Resolution to take legal action and appoint Advocate which was signed by around 182 members of the society 656-671 14. 463-479 25.09.2020 Petitioner society passed Resolution to take legal action and appoint Advocate which was signed by around 182 members of the society 656-671 14. The 1stMOU dated 26.04.2016 signed by the 201 members duly produced at page 129, the 2nd MOU Commercial dated 03.05.2016 signed by 10 members duly produced at page 190 and the 3rd MOU dated 08.03.2018, in all provides for the following amenities: Old area of per flat per square yards Type A : 85.51-sq.yds Type B : 75.77-sq.yds Type C : 57.54-sq.yds Type D : 28.00-sq.yds New area of per flat per square yards Type A : 111-sq.yds Type B : 98-sq.yds Type C : 75-sq.yds Type D : 44-sq.yds 2. Member Compensation/Gift money (in INR): Type A : 10,25,000/- Type B : 9,25,000/- Type C : 7,25,000/- Type D : 7,50,000/- - Developer will make payment of 50% amount to each member at the time of taking over legal, vacant and peaceful possession from member to the Developer and remaining 50% amount will be paid to each member at the time of handing over of possession by Developer to legal owner cum member. 3. Monthly Rental to members (in INR) : Type A :15,500/- Type B :13,000/- Type C :11,000/- Type D :35,000/- Per Month rent amount will be paid by the Developer till handing over of possession to legal owner cum member Incremental in rent every year: 10 % One time Deposit on rent: 2 months rent One time Brokerage on rent: 1 month rent 4. Bank guarantee by developer of Rs. 15 Crores of any National Bank, Co-operative Bank or any financial institution registered by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) 5. Maintenance Deposit : 75000/- per flat to be deposited in maintenance account on behalf of old members to be deposited by developer at the time of handing over possession 6. One time Transportation/Transfer charges per unit: 5,000/- upon handing over peaceful and vacant possession of respective flat by member to Developer 7. Allotted Car Space : 1 car park/per flat 8. Modular Kitchen :Upto 30000/- to be provided by Developer 9. Other Amenities: - Decorative Entrance Gate - Security Cabin - Entrance Foyers - Club House - Gymnasium - Indoor Board Games - Senior Citizen Sitting - Play Area for Kids - Garden 10. Allotted Car Space : 1 car park/per flat 8. Modular Kitchen :Upto 30000/- to be provided by Developer 9. Other Amenities: - Decorative Entrance Gate - Security Cabin - Entrance Foyers - Club House - Gymnasium - Indoor Board Games - Senior Citizen Sitting - Play Area for Kids - Garden 10. Other Specifications: - Trimex/Paved Roads - Street Lights - CCTV in Foyers - Concealed phone lines - DTH Cable connection point - AC point in all rooms - Geyser points in all rooms - Glazed tiles upto Lintel level in Bathrooms - Provision for Gas line - Putty from inside. Acrylic colour outside. - Granite Platform and Glazed tiles upto Lintel level in Kitchen - Vitrified Tiles, Sanitary Fittings and Accessories Plumbing Materials, Cement, Steel, Aluminium Sections, Safety Grills, Electrical fittings & wiring to be used of Good Company. Any changes and/or modifications to be made in accordance with existing laws and regulations as well as after due consultation and upon obtaining permission from the managing committee of petitioner society in event of surge in prices of construction material and/or due to factors like Force majeure, escalation of prices due to passage of time. 15. In light of the aforesaid, the objections raised by the respondent Nos.7, 8, 15, 16 and 32 does not appeal to this Court in light of the fact that the petitioner herein has placed on record the procedure duly followed by the petitioner society as referred above, which require no interference. The respondent No.15 has prayed for allotment of commercial shop, however, petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society. It appears that the respondent No.15 has erected illegal construction by way of a shop and the same cannot be legalized considering the fact that the petitioner is a residential co-operative society. 16. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Cooperation 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. 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. 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. 17. 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. 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. 17. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” 18. 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. 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. 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.” 19. 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 30 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 5 members, have given consent for redevelopment, at the instance of the 5 members, the consent of the majority members should not suffer. 20. 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 08.08.2016 also states that the buildings are in dilapidated condition, under such circumstances, in the interest of the residents of the buildings/flats, the decision of redevelopment appears to be taken in good faith and such process cannot be stalled at the instance of the 5 members who objected to such redevelopment for their personal grievances. The respondent Nos.7, 8, 15, 16 and 32 in fact, have also stated that they are not adverse to the redevelopment. 21. 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. 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 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. 22. In light of the aforesaid discussion and the ratio as as referred above, the respondent Nos.7, 8, 15, 16 and 32 are the members of the society and loose their individual rights to challenge the decision of the society for and except, through the society. The petitioner society is compliant of the conditions under Section 41A of the Act, 2018, in the facts of the present case, (i) the buildings are constructed in the year 1985 and are more than 30 years old i.e. 36 years; (ii) the Structural Engineer Report dated 08.08.2016 states that the buildings are in dilapidated condition and (iii) there is consent of more than 75% members i.e. 87.16%. members. 22.1 The objections raised by Mr. P.S. Chandra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.7 and 8 that the petitioner society has failed to follow redevelopment process and that, M/s. Prerna Infrabuild Ltd. has been short listed without following due process of law. On perusal of the documents on record, the petitioner society issued public advertisement dated 19.06.2016 in Gujarat Samachar, Sandesh and Divya Bhaskar and pursuant to the said advertisement, bids were invited and the petitioner society proceeded to accept the offer of the respondent No.2. The aforesaid decision by the petitioner society followed due procedure as required to be followed under the Gujarat Ownership Flats (Amendment) Act, 2018. 22.2 The objections raised by the respondent No.7 and 8 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 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. 22.3 This Court has also considered the fact that while Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No.665 of 2019 filed by the respondent No.12 and withdrawn unconditionally. The another Civil Suit being Civil Suit No.1728 of 2019 which is instituted by the respondent No.12 and which is pending before the competent Court, is independent proceeding initiated by the respondent No.12 against the society for which the redevelopment, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be stalled in line with the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench as referred above. The aforesaid cannot be a reason to stall the process of redevelopment. 23. 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.7, 8, 15, 16 and 32 are directed to vacate their respective flats 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 eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order and cooperate in the redevelopment of the petitioner society. 24. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute.