The Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has restrained the redevelopment of a co-operative housing society at Goregaon (West) through a particular developer selected ‘arbitrarily’ by the society’s managing committee.
The consumer forum recently directed New Siddharthnagar Nalanda Co-operative Housing Society and Shivam Development Corporation not to take any steps towards redevelopment of the society building, pursuant to development agreement executed in September 2006.
Twelve of a total of 32 members of the housing society had moved the consumer forum, contending some office bearers of the society had appointed a developer overlooking recommendations of its own architect and chartered accountant.
According to their complaint, in December 2003, Mhada had granted them permission to redevelop the society building if the housing society resolved to go for redevelopment.
Accordingly, bids were invited through a public notice in February 2006.
The housing society had appointed GM Purohit and Company as chartered accountant and BB Associates as architects to scrutinise and weigh comparative merit of bids accepted. After bids were received, both of them recommended the name of Sahajanand Builder, and accordingly the society issued an appointment letter to the recommended developer in August 2006.
The office bearers of the society, however, reversed the whole process and appointed Shivam Development Corporation as developer, and subsequently the development agreement was executed with Shivam Development Corporation.
A bench comprising forum president JL Deshpande and member Deepa Bidnurkar held that the office bearers failed to keep the process transparent and to ensure that the decision (of appointing developer) would be taken by majority, and would be in the interest of the society.
The forum further found that the decision of the office bearers to appoint Shivam Development Corporation was not in the interest of the society, and stalled the redevelopment process pursuant to September 2006 development agreement noting its continuation would cause injustice to the members of the housing society.