Court Upholds Requirement to Exhaust Statutory Appeal Process Under Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Advance India Projects Limited against an order issued by the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA). The petition sought to challenge HRERA's decision directing the company to refund a substantial sum to complainants, along with interest. The court, comprising Justices Suvir Sehgal and Vikas Suri, emphasized the necessity for petitioners to exhaust alternative statutory remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by buyers who alleged non-payment of a promised monthly assured return for a retail shop unit in the "AIPL Joy Gallery" real estate project in Gurugram. Despite the company's argument that the complainants failed to sign the sale agreement and were offered possession, HRERA ordered a refund of over one crore rupees with interest, after deducting a portion of the sale consideration.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued for the maintainability of the writ petition by referencing several Supreme Court judgments. However, the court noted that these cases were distinguishable on facts and did not support bypassing the appeal process laid out in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Section 44 of the Act provides a clear mechanism for appeals to be heard by a specialized Appellate Tribunal, which is empowered with the authority of a civil court and guided by principles of natural justice. The High Court underscored that this statutory remedy must be pursued before invoking its writ jurisdiction.
The bench further pointed out that the requirement of a pre-deposit for filing an appeal, as mandated by the Act, is neither harsh nor onerous. It is a legislative measure to ensure the promoter's bona fides and safeguard the interests of aggrieved parties.
The judgment reinforces the principle that the availability of an alternative, efficacious remedy precludes the exercise of writ jurisdiction, except in exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, directing the petitioner to seek recourse through the statutory appellate process.
Bottom line:-
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) is not maintainable where an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, is available.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
