The High Court · 2025

5. Smt. Lata Hebbar, w/o. Dr. K.R. Hebbar, aged about 62 years R/o. Flat No.D- 1401, Necklace Pride Apts., Kavadiguda, Secunderabad - SOO OOg.

6. Sri Hemendra R, Patel, S/o. Sri Ratilal t\4. Patel, aged about 50 years R/o. Flat No.D-804, Necklace Pride Apts. Kavadiguda, secunderabad - sbo oos. 7. Smt. Sravanthi Kumsi, S/o. Sri surender Yogender, aged about 41 years R/o. Flat No.D-202 Necklace Pride Apts., Kavadiguda, secunderabad - soo oos. B. Sri Chintan Bharat Shah, S/o. Sri Bharat Shah, aged about42years. R/o. Flat No.D-902, Necklace Pride Apts. Kavadiguda, Sedunderabad - soo obs. 9. Dr. M. sheetal Kumar, s/o. Sri M. srinivas chary, aged about 43 years R/o. Flat No.E-704, Necklace Pride Apts., Kavadigud-a, Secunderabad-- 000 003.

10. Sri Konda Naveen Kumar, S/o. sri Venu Murthy, aged about 48 years R/o. Flat No.D-14o2, Necklace Pride Apts., Kavadiguda, secunderabbd - 500 003. 1 1 .9.ri Yir_lfqt Gypta, s/o. Sri Arun Kumar Gupta, aged about 45 years R/o. Flat No.D-503, Necklace Pride Apts. Kavadiguda, Secunderabad: SOO OOg.

12.9.ri Yoggl!' Jindal, S/o. Sri VUry Kumar Jindal, aged about 31 years R/o. Ftat No.D-1002, Necklace Pride Apts. Kavadiguda, s-ecunderabad'- soo oog. 13-Dr. B. [VladhusudanaRao, S/o. Sri-8. Ramaiah, aged about 61 years Rio. Flat No.E-304, Necklace Pride Apts., Kavadiguda, sedunderabad - 5oo oos. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the tligh Court may be pleased to pass an order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus, declaring the impugned order dated 1s-10-202s passed in l-A.No.24212025 in O.P.No.5612025 bythe respondent No.2, in the petition fited by the respondents No.4 to 13 herein under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 26 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules, thereby staying impugned resolution dated 2510512025 passed by special general body of the petitioner society and also directing the petitionerr society not to discuss/include any agenda which is connected with the O.ps. filed before the respondent No.2 as it is pending adjudication, as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, unreasonable and violative of law and the principles of natural justice, to set aside the same and consequently directing the respondent No.2 not to entertain any petition presented by the respondents No.4 to 13 orothers through them relating to collection of maintenance by the petitioner on square feet basis as per general body resolution, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order suspending the operation of the impugned order dated 1S-10-2OZ' passed in l.A.No.242l2o2s in o.p.No.s6l2o2s by the respondent No.2, in the petition filed bythe respondents No.4 to 13 herein undersecti,cn 151 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 26 of the Tribunal procedure Rules, pending disposal of the present writ petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHYAM S AGRAWAL counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Gp FoR coopERATloN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 9,12 and 13: M/S RAHUL KHANDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.10 and 1 1 : SRI RESU MAHENDER REDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI ORDER: No In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the orcier dated

15.ro.2025 p:rssed in I.A.No.242 of 2o2s in o.p.No.56 of 2o2s filed by respondent No..2, in the petition filed by respondent Nos. 4 to l3 under Section 151 of the code of civil procedure, 19og reacl r,r,ith Rule 26 of the Tribunzti Proceclure Rules, rvhereby the impugned resolution dated 25.o5.2025 p;-rssed by the Special General Body trleeting o[ the petitioner socicty u,as stayed by the Tribunai, as illegal ernd arbitrary.

2. Hcard lezrrned counsel for the petitioners, learnecl Government Pleader lbr co-c,peration, appearing tor. ..rporrdents No.I to 3 and M/s. Rahul Khandhakar, learned counsel appearing for resprfn6lsnts No.4 to 9, 12 and 13 and Sri Resu Mlahender Reddy, iearned counsel appearing for respondr:nts No.lO and t l.

3. Brief lacis leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the property by tlarne M/s.Necklace Pride Apartments cons;:ite<I of 434 tlats in .5 blocks .tnd the Society was iormed in 2O2l ancl frorn the date of its formation, the maintenance charges are being collected per square l-eet basis. Fourrer:n (14) members oi the petitioner,s Scii:iety have filed ." 1.,., o.P.No.14 oi 20'25 along'n,ith I.A.No.67 r:f 2o2s against ihe collection of the maintenance charges oil "square feet basis,, and :rot as *per flat basis." Ttrr: 'l'ribunai alltxveri i.rt.No.62 of 202s virie order dated t 1 -L-

11.O4.2025 observing that as per the by-laws of the Society, the Board is not competent to fix up the maintenance and it is manclatory for the General Body of the Society to fix the maintenance. Therefore, the Tribunal has granted interim suspension of the invoiccs issued for collection of maintenance charges and the Tribunal has also directed the Society to collect the maintenance equally and that there shall not be any coercive steps for collection of maintenance charges. Thereafter, the petitioner's Society has called for a Special General Body Meeting .2025 at 1 1 a.m. and it is claimed that 181 members have attended the meeting, however, the resoltttion 'uvas passed by a majority of 168 members in favour of ancl 9 against the resolution. The resolution was passed for collection o[ common area maintenance charges on square feet basis. Challenging the conduct of the Special General Body Meeting, the respondents No.4 to 13 have filed O.P.No.56 of 2025 before the Tribunal along with I.A.No-242 of 2025 for suspension of operation of resolution dated 25.O5.2O2r. Vide docket order dated L5.1O.2O25, the Tribunal has observed that the Society appears to have conducted the Special General Body Mceting with a sole intention to dilute the orders passed by the Tribunal and that there appears to be interpolation of the resolution. Therefore, the Tribunal observed that the primafacie view of the impugned resolution is liable to be stayed pending further orders. The Tributral has further directed the Society not to discuss or include any agenda rn'hich is connected to the O.P's filed before it as it is pending adjudication and \ \ /,. I t -J the matter rvas directed to be posted for hearing on 11.11.2o2s. Challenging the docket order dated ls.lo.2o25, this u,rit petition is filed.

4. Learned c()unsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the observations of t.he Tribunal, in the docket order dated tr.o4.2o2, in I.A.No.67 of 2025 in o.P.No .14 of ztozs, the petitioner.'s Societ5r has convened Special General Body Meeting and has passecl resolution by way of majorit.y and thereflore, it could not have been stayed by the Tribunal, u'ithout issuing notice to the petitioner and therefore, it is in violation of principles oI natural justice.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondents No.4 to 13, however, submitted that the Tribunal has already pilssed orders to collect the mainl-enance charges per flat basis and in r,.iolation of the same, the petitioner's Society has issued invoices for maintenance on per square feet basis and is collecting maintenance arrd that the petitioners are also paying the same under protest. It is submitted that in order to circ--umvent the order of the Tribunal, the Special General Body Meeting Yn'as convened and the petitioner's Societv .ras challenged the procedure adoptecl in conducting the Special General Body Meeting vide o.P.No.56 ctf 2o2s. He placed reliance on the juclgment of the Bombay High court reported in venus cooperative Housing societg and Another as" Dr.J.Y.Detwant & Orsr upon the issue of collection ' 2oo2 SCC Ontine Bom '1457 -4- .a of maintenance charges per square feet basis or per flat basis and submitted that the said decision has become final and the same ought to have considered in the General Body Meeting before passing any resolution. He submitted that the decision of the General Body cannot be arbitrary or unreasonable, but.has to be in accordance with law. He supported the order of the Tribunal stating that since the issue is pending for adjudication before the Tribunal, the same ought not to have been discussed in the General Body Meeting.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court fincls that the order of the Tribunal in O.P.No.l4 of 2025 in I.A.No.67 of 2O25 is only that the Board of Directors cannot decide the maintenance charges and it is the General Body which can take the decision. Accordingly, the Special General Body Meeting was convened- Therefore, it cannot be said that the meeting was convened and conducted to llout the orders of the Tribunal. The method or procedure adopted w,hile conducting the General Body Meeting can be assailed by the aggrieved persons as is done by fiiing O.P.No.56 of 2025. However, the Tribunal erred in holding that the Society has conducted General Body Meeting with a sole intention to dilute the orders passed it, therefore, staying the resolution passed in the General Body Meeting, without issuing notice to the respondents. The further observations in the docket order L5.LO.2O25 are also not sustainable as the General Body cannot be prevented from discussing an issue, which is pending I t \ \ -)- before the Courts. It may be prevented from taking a decision, if the issue is sub-judice. Therefore, the observations of the 'Tribunal in the docket order dilted 15.10.2025 are set aside and t-he Tribunal is directed to re-consider the issue on merits, after hearing both the parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of t.r'vo (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The iss'ue of validity of the General Body Meeting is kept open.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed. /TRUE COPY// SRINIVASA REDDY ANT REG OFFICER , The State of

1. The Principal Secretary Cooperation Department, Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The R-egistrar Chandravihar, The Telangana Co-operative Tribunal, M.J.Road, Hyderabad.

3. The Commissioner 3ra floor, The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gruhakalpa building Nampally, [M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 4. One CC to Sri Shyam S Agrawal, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Cooperation, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Ohe CC to Sri Rahul Khandhakar, Advocate[OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri Resu Mahender Reddy, Advocate[OPUC] B. Two CD Copies t To, TJ BSR HIGH COURT DATED:06/1 112025 ORDER WP.No.33507 of 2025 I. .J ;r. "'ll' * ,''..1 5\1,; l, &X [t; Uffi :l I ,: )i r)f. :ir),11(;l.t i:-i':t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0t raw