Each member entitled to vote under Maharashtra Housing Act, overriding society's family definition.

The High Court held that each member is entitled to vote under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Societies Act, 1960, disregarding the society's definition of 'family' in the Bye-Laws. The Court emphasized the 'one member-one vote' principle, stating that legislative acts prevail over subordinate legislation, and any conflicting bye-law cannot override this principle. The judgment affirmed the right of all family members admitted to the society to vote under Section 27, dismissing the appeal and ordering the appellant to pay costs and counsel's fee.

---

---

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 27 of Maharashtra Cooperative Housing Societies Act, 1960 u/s Bye Laws of Merry Niketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.

Details:
The appeal concerned the interpretation of Section 27 of the 1960 Act in relation to the Bye Laws of the Merry Niketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The dispute arose when the Managing Committee prepared a final voter list based on bye-laws, limiting voting rights to one per family despite some families having multiple flats. The High Court held that each member is entitled to vote under Section 27, disregarding the society's definition of 'family' in the Bye-Laws.

The appellant argued that the Act and Bye-Laws must be read together, emphasizing the 'one family one vote' principle to prevent family members from constituting a majority in a Group Housing Cooperative Society. Section 27 of the Act provides for one member-one vote, and the Bye-Laws define 'flat' and 'family' while also allowing individual members to hold multiple flats.

It was established that legislative acts prevail over subordinate legislation, and Bye-Laws must align with statutory provisions. Section 27 of the Act unequivocally mandates one member-one vote, and any conflicting bye-law cannot override this principle. The Court emphasized that family members admitted to the society are entitled to vote as per statutory provisions, regardless of flat ownership.

The judgment affirmed the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal and upholding the right of all family members admitted to the society to vote under Section 27. The appellant was ordered to pay costs and counsel's fee.

---