Collector Mumbai Suburban District allots land to a cooperative housing society with 56 members in 1979. As per the conditions of the land allotment, the society should construct the building in two years. Society appoints a builder in 1982. The builder constructed up to some level, but society can not pay for the construction. The builder files a suit to recover his money in the High Court. During this time another builder offers to pay the first builder in lieu of the first builder’s development rights. The H.C allows this under an arbitration petition in 1992. The second builder also can not do much construction for lack of funds and he assigns his rights to a third builder. This third builder eventually completes the construction in 1999.As per one of the clauses in the agreement between society and second builder, the builder can bring in his own members in place of original members who have resigned. In2000 after allotments 10 members paid for the flats to the last builder and took possession.
The Registrar appoints an administrator in 2002 to manage the affairs of the society. This administrator gives NOC to a few new flat purchases wherein he writes that the money for the flat may be paid to the builder. He also sends a letter to the Collector asking him to consider the application of 32 new members. In the meanwhile he also issues a letter titled NOC wherein he allows the builder to induct 35 new members in place of 35 resigned members. After a month the Administrator writes to the collector and asks the collector to hold considering he applications he had earlier sent as these applications were missing some documents. However he does not revoke the NOC he had given to the Builder.
My question is
1. Is the Administrator correct in issuing these NOCs to flat purchasers and to the builder or are his actions ultra vires?
2. Can the Collector be held accountable for the action of the Administrator?
