Right to vote and contest

I dont know much about the act, but it looks as though the society has more members than number of flats assuming that both owners and residents (tenents?) are members. If this is permitted under the act, then may be the act itself is defective. But if the act allows this, and if all members make equal contributions to the society, then all members should be eligible to vote and contest. This appears common sense to me.

Tks for ur response.

In fact all the members ahve voting right but the right to contest is restricted to owners. 

You are right in your presumption that the Assn has more members than the number of flats.

If the wisdom of the persons who drafted the byelaw is to give wieghtage to the owners, the question of proof of wonership becomes eminent and the memebrship register will get cchanged upteen times.

Again the proof of ownership involves definig the allottees, subsequant purhcasers and so on.

Another factor is that all the residents i,e residing owners and tenants only pay the monthly subscripttion and the non resident owners are not paying the subscripttion.

This brings more complications since the non resident owners are not paying the subscripttion they will cease to be memebrs and hence they will be disqualified to contest.

Ultiamately when there 10% of the memebrs are subscripttion paying resident owners, they are the only persons eligible to contest.  This means 10% will prevail over the rest of 90%

Let me receive mroe responses so that we can decide upon suitable amendments to the byelaw.

Thanks again

10% of a society can not  even hold a valid election. There is a case law that states that a fixed body like a society should have atleast 50% of the electorate voting to make the election legally valid

Great if you can provide me the details of case law

Here is the case law. It is rather old (1917), but should hold as such cases are very rare

https://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1573685/

Look at para 18