Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a resident of a cooperative housing society against a city civil court orderthat allowed the society’s decision for redevelopment of the building. The approvals granted by the general body of the society are binding on the members, said the HC. The court stated, “Any attempt made by the appellant to raise such objections without challenging the decisions taken by the general body of the society would unnecessarily delay the redevelopment undertaken by the society.“The general body of the society is the supreme authority to make decisions with regard to the society’s property, Justice Gauri Godse clarified. The resident member sought interim relief restraining Sai Apartments Cooperative Housing Society from proceeding with the tender document approved in the general body meeting of the society, as he expressed concerns over procedures being followed for land falling in the CRZ zone.Justice Godse said the petitioner, Mridula Chakraborty, in her suit and interim application, sought relief with reference to the process of redevelopment undertaken by the society after consulting the project management and architect.The HC heard senior counsel Anil Anturkar with advocate Vivek Shukla for the petitioner, who placed on record CRZ remarks issued by the corporation on July 7, 2023, which state that the land belonging to the society falls under CRZ. Meanwhile, the society placed on record CRZ remarks of the BMC issued in Feb 2025, which record that the society’s land does not fall in CRZ. However, the society was asked to get CRZ clearance from the coastal zone authority before developing the land.The society’s advocates, Astha Tamhankar and Sameer Chitnis, argued that the tender was issued after considering objections raised by the member. They argued that the petitioner never challenged any of the resolutions passed by the general body but “has unnecessarily raised an objection and stalled the redevelopment process, which is adversely affecting the rights of the members of the society”. The society appointed a project management consultant to take care of any discrepancies or procedural aspects to be followed for the approval, the society submitted.The petitioner said that while she doesn’t oppose the redevelopment of the society, she was concerned about a discrepancy in the size of the land in the tender notice and feared that the developer might not redevelop the society if the land was larger, and the society would thus suffer.