The pendency of proceedings before the Municipal Corporation does not automatically bar the exercise of jurisdiction by the Authority under RERA. The Authority has the power to determine whether the complaint before it is maintainable, considering factors such as the nature of the complaints, the reliefs claimed, and the Authority's jurisdiction under both Acts.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri V.V.Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri T.V.P.Sai Vihari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. With the consent of the parties counsels, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.

3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:-

“Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court in the interests of justice be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particular in the nature of “Writ of Prohibition” against the 2nd Respondent prohibiting the said authority from proceeding to adjudicate the Complaint No.132/2022 under the provisions of Section 31 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 r/w Rule 48 of A.P Real Estate Regulation and Development Rules, 2017, which have been set in motion by issuing notice dated 09.09.2022 based on Complaint of the Respondent as the same is without jurisdiction and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. Learned Senior Advocate submits that the petitioner No.1 is a registered partnership firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and is the developer of G.E.V. Radha Madhav Towers, (in short ‘the Project’), situated at Pinnamaneni Poly Clinic Road, Vijayawada, which was constructed after obtaining building permission from the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (for short, “the VMC”) on 25.04.2015 and after the completion of the construction of the project, the VMC issued Occupancy Certificate dated 03.09.2019. However, on the complaint of the respondent No.3, two show cause notices dated 09.07.2022 and 23.07.2022 under sections 452 (1) and 441 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1965 (in short “the APMC”), respectively were issued to which the petitioners submitted their reply and the matter is pending before the VMC.

5. He further submits that the respondent No.3 further filed complaint under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short, “RERA”) read with Rule 48 of A.P. Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2017, (in short, the Rules 2017), before the 2nd respondent-Authority, upon which the impugned notice dated 09.09.2022 has been issued to the petitioners in Complaint Case No.132/2022, to answer the complaint. The petitioners have challenged the said notice.

6. Challenging the notice, Sri V.V.Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Advocate raised the following submissions:-

i) the impugned notice is without jurisdiction as the respondent No.3 having already filed a complaint before the Municipal Corporation could not legally invoke the jurisdiction of the Authority under the RERA;

ii) the multiple proceedings with respect to the same matter cannot be initiated and cannot proceed simultaneously;

iii) the respondent No.3 suppressed the material fact of pendency of proceedings before the Municipal Corporation upon his complaint and made false declaration in Para 7 of the complaint before the Authority, that such matter was not pending before any Court of law or any other Authority or any other Tribunal; and

iv) the respondent No.3 did not avail the remedy to approach the promoters/the petitioners with respect to the grievances in the complaint in terms of Section 11 (4) of the RERA and if he had so approached his grievances could have been attended but without availing that remedy the respondent No.3 filed the complaint directly before the Authority.

7. Learned Senior Advocate relied upon the case of K.Jayaram and others vs. Bangalore Development Authority and others, [2021 SCC online SC 1194] to contend that the multiplicity of proceedings cannot be allowed and his complaint deserved rejection, consequently the impugned notice dese