JUDGMENT :

Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J

1. These proceedings have been initiated under Article 32 of the Constitution by a purchaser, seeking directions in respect of a real estate project called “Sushant Megapolis”, which is being developed by the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents. The reliefs which have been sought, while invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, as noted above, are in the following terms:

“i. …a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to cancel all the agreements with respondent no.5, 6 & 7 and to ensure that all the projects in which money has been taken from the buyers their money is refunded or the same is constructed and handed over in a reasonable period of time;

ii. …a writ in the nature of Mandamus appointing a court receiver or form a committee headed by a retired judge of this Hon'ble Court along with other suitable persons from different fields to monitor/handle the projects of Respondent 6 & 7 in which money has been taken from the buyers;

iii. …a writ of mandamus, or order or direction to conduct a detailed forensic audit for all the projects launched by respondent no. 5, 6 & 7 in its project under the Flagship of "SUSHANT MEGAPOLIS";

iv. …a writ in the nature of mandamus or order or direction to conduct investigation by the CBI-Central Bureau of Investigation of the large scale fraud and cheating done by the officers of respondent no. 1 together with officers and directors of respondent no. 5, 6 & 7 as the state agency has completely failed in its duty to investigate the matter;

v. …writ order or direction to direct all investigation agencies such as Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Enforcement Directorate and others to investigate the money siphoned off by the respondent no. 5, 6 & 7.

vi. …any other writ, order or direction in favour of the Petitioner and such similarly placed persons, as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The above extract would indicate that the primary relief which has been sought is (i) cancellation of all the agreements; (ii) refund of moneys to purchasers; and in the alternative (iii) ensuring that the construction is carried out and that the premises are handed over within a reasonable period of time. Incidental to the above reliefs, the petitioner seeks the constitution of a Committee headed by a former Judge of this Court together with other persons to monitor and handle the projects of the developer in the present case. The petitioner also seeks a forensic audit, an investigation by CBI and by other authorities such as the Serious Fraud Investigation Office and Enforcement Directorate.

3. Mr Manoj V George, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that, in another project of the developer which is being implemented at Lucknow, notice was issued on a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution (Pawan Kumar Kushwaha and Ors. v Lucknow Development Authority and Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No 1001 of 2020) on 20 November 2020 by a two-Judge Bench of this Court of which one of us was a member. On the above grounds, it has been submitted that it would be appropriate for this Court to issue notice and tag the writ petition under Article 32 with the earlier proceedings.

4. On 7 January 2021, a three-Judge Bench of this Court [of which one of us was a member] has dealt with the maintainability of a petition under Article 32 in similar circumstances. In Shelly Lal v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No 1390 of 2020, this Court declined to entertain the petition. The order of the Court is extracted below:

“ORDER

1. A proposed construction project at NOIDA which did not take off from the drawing board has given rise to proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution by twenty five purchasers of commercial premises.

2. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 32, the petitioners have sought, inter alia, the following directions:

(i) A writ, order or direction to the respond