Redevelopment in Maharashtra Housing Societies: Why the 51% Developer-Selection Vote Is Not a Majority of Members Present (Rule 106C-13)

A committee counts hands in the hall and declares the developer selected — but "51%" in the redevelopment rules does not mean what most committees think it means

At a special general body meeting, forty of a sixty-member society turn up. The chairman puts three shortlisted developers' offers to a hand vote. Twenty-two hands go up for one bidder — more than half of the forty people in the room. The chairman declares the resolution carried, the video recording is switched off, and the committee starts talking about signing letters of intent. A member who could not attend that evening later asks to see the resolution. He does the arithmetic differently: twenty-two out of sixty is not a majority of the society at all — it is thirty-six percent. Who is right?

For an ordinary decision at an ordinary general body meeting, the chairman would have been right. For choosing the developer or contractor in a redevelopment, he was not — and the difference is a printed rule, not opinion.

Two different 51%, in the same rule

Rule 106C-13(3) sets two decision thresholds side by side, and they are not the same threshold:

• •Ordinary general body decisions are carried by "51% majority of members present" at the meeting — including members joining by video conferencing. If forty members are present and twenty-two vote for a proposal, that proposal passes.
• •Developer or contractor selection in a redevelopment is carried only by "51% of total members of the society, including those attending via video conferencing" — not 51% of those present. In a sixty-member society, that is at least thirty-one members voting for the same developer, whether the meeting hall holds forty people or all sixty.

A society that applies the ordinary-meeting arithmetic to a redevelopment vote is not making a paperwork error. It is passing a resolution the rule does not actually authorise.

Why the bar is set higher for this one decision

Rule 106C-13(3)(i)-(j) surrounds the developer-selection vote with more procedure than any other general body decision in the 2026 rules:

• •The meeting must be a special general body meeting called on 14 clear days' notice — and that notice period is mandatory, it cannot be waived even if every member agrees to shorten it.
• •Quorum for the meeting itself is two-thirds of total members, not the lower "two-thirds or 20, whichever is less" that applies to an ordinary AGM.
• •A representative of the Registrar must be present, and — separately, under bye-law 175 — inviting that representative and their attendance is described as compulsory.
• •The entire meeting must be video recorded. One copy stays with the Chairman; a second copy must be lodged in the office of the Assistant or Deputy Registrar with jurisdiction over the society.
• •The Registrar's representative files a factual report on the meeting to the Registrar, who then communicates it back to the society.

Bye-law 175 adds the legal foundation underneath all of this: redevelopment of a society's property, including vacant land, must be carried out "strictly in accordance and confirmation with the Directions issued by the Government of Maharashtra" under section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, by Government Resolution dated 3 January 2009. Rule 106C-13 does not replace that GR — it sits alongside it as the 2026 procedural layer for the meeting itself.

None of this reads as decoration. A quorum set at two-thirds of the whole membership, a mandatory notice period nobody can shorten, a Registrar's officer whose attendance is compulsory, and a video record split between the Chairman and the Registrar's own office are all aimed at the same target: making sure a developer is never selected by a small, motivated slice of the membership dressed up as "the meeting."

What happens when a society gets the threshold wrong

The rule itself supplies the answer, because bye-law 175(b) contemplates it happening: if the development agreement is not executed with the developer chosen at that meeting, the society — after cancelling the resolution — may appoint a new developer from its short-listed panel, or, if that is not workable, start the entire procedure again from the beginning. There is no shortcut back into the same flawed resolution. A vote that never reached 51% of total members was never a valid developer-selection resolution to begin with, whatever the chairman announced on the night.

A separate consequence follows from bye-law 175(c): if redevelopment increases the society's membership — additional flat purchasers who become members of the reconstituted society — the society must increase its authorised share capital, amend its bye-laws to match, and submit the new members' list to the Registrar for approval. That is downstream of a validly selected developer, not a substitute for one.

What your committee should do

1. 1Before the redevelopment general body meeting, confirm the society's total membership figure from the share register — not the expected attendance — and calculate 51% of that number. That is the vote count you need, not 51% of whoever signs the attendance register on the day.
2. 2Issue notice for the special general body meeting at least 14 clear days in advance, in the form required for a special general body meeting, and do not accept a request from members — however unanimous — to shorten it.
3. 3Write formally to the Registrar's office requesting a representative for the meeting, and do not proceed with the developer-selection agenda item if no representative is present.
4. 4Arrange video recording of the entire meeting, not just the voting segment, and after the meeting lodge one copy with the Chairman and forward the second copy to the Assistant or Deputy Registrar's office with jurisdiction over the society.
5. 5At the vote itself, count and record votes against the total membership figure calculated in step 1 — including members participating by video conferencing — and state that figure, not the attendance figure, in the minutes.
6. 6If the resolution does not reach 51% of total members, treat it as not carried. A majority of those present is not sufficient, and the meeting should not proceed to sign any letter of intent or agreement on that basis.
7. 7If a development agreement with the selected developer is not eventually executed, follow bye-law 175(b): cancel the earlier resolution formally before appointing a new developer from the shortlist, or restarting the procedure.