Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
Registry Of RERA Not Conferred With Powers Of Adjudication On Maintainability Of Complaints: Karnataka High Court
|The Karnataka High Court quashed an Order communicated via electronic mail by the Registry of RERA, which rejected the complaint filed by the Petitioner.
The Karnataka High Court held that the Registry of RERA is not conferred with the powers of adjudication regarding the maintainability of a complaint by the statute.
The Court quashed an Order communicated via electronic mail by the Registry of Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), which rejected the complaint filed by the Petitioner. The Court allowed the Writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, holding that the electronic mail terminating the proceedings was “illegal.”
A Single Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna ordered, “If the Registry of RERA is terminating the proceedings in the manner that it has done now, it would be an act without jurisdiction. Therefore, this a matter which is to be viewed seriously by the members of the RERA. The powers of adjudication even with regard to maintainability is not conferred upon the Registry by the statute. That being so, the electronic mail that is communicated, terminating the proceedings, is on the face of it illegal.”
Advocate Aditya Chatterjee appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Gowthamdev C Ullal represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner claimed that SJR Prime Corporation Pvt. Ltd. had approached him in 2013 for the sale of an apartment based on a brochure, representing that the project would be developed according to the sanction plan. Disputes arose between Petitioner and the developer, leading him to file a complaint with RERA. The RERA Registry, however, communicated via electronic mail that the complaint was not maintainable and rejected it.
Court’s Order
The High Court held that “The Registry scrutinizes the complaint and opines that the complaint does not come within the jurisdiction of the Authority. Hence, the complaint is not registered, as it is not maintainable.”
“This power with the Registry is unavailable, as the complaint ought to be placed before the RERA Authority and the members of RERA will have to decide on the maintainability of the complaint,” the Bench explained.
The Court referred to the decision in P. Surendran v. State (2019), wherein the Supreme Court held that the “functions of the Registry of the is purely administrative and cannot decide upon the maintainability of the petition, which is a judicial function.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Impugned e-mail order dated 23.09.2024 passed by respondent No.1 stands quashed…The complaint registered before the RERA is restored to file.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Amit Garg v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:12445)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Aditya Chatterjee, Nikitha Surabhi and Akhila Balaji
Respondents: Advocates Gowthamdev C Ullal and JP Darshan