Access to justice requires hybrid hearings in tribunals, balancing physical and virtual modes, to enhance fairness and efficiency in dispute resolution.

JUDGMENT :

Revati Mohite Dere, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Learned Addl. G.P waives service on behalf of the respondent No.1-State and Mr. Adsure waives service on behalf of the respondent No.2-MahaRERA.

3. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and is taken up for final disposal.

4. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs:

“a) a direction to the Respondent No.2-Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority to expeditiously and in a time bound manner pass the final order in the execution/non-compliance proceedings being CC006000000195324/ APPL/NC/2 in the Complaint No. CC006000000195324 of 2020, which was reserved for orders on 21.03.2024;

b) to frame guidelines to streamline the process of execution of orders passed by Respondent No. 2- Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority including but not limited to (i) providing a mechanism for mentioning matters, (ii) conducting hearings immediately after filing of execution proceedings and (iii) expeditious disposal of execution proceedings.”

5. As far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, vide order dated 25^th April 2025, we had, having regard to the fact that the petitioner's application was pending since March 2024, requested the respondent No.2-Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (‘MahaRERA’) to dispose of the petitioner’s execution applications and pass final orders within a period of six weeks.

6. As far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2–MahaRERA had initially sought time to obtain instructions. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 29^th April 2025. On 29^th April 2025, learned counsel for respondent No.2 again sought further time to take instructions with respect to the commencement of hybrid hearings, as was the practice prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. In view thereof, the matter was adjourned to 30^th April 2025.

7. On 30^th April 2025, we heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, and directed them to file their written submissions. Pursuant to the said direction, all parties submitted their respective written submissions. Learned counsel Mr. Nilesh Gala also submitted written submissions on behalf of the RERA Practitioners Welfare Association (`RPWA’).

8. Although the petition was closed for orders, whilst going through the papers, as there were some queries which were left unanswered by the counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-MahaRERA, we again listed the petition on 25^th June 2025. On the said date, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-MahaRERA, sought time to take instructions. Accordingly, the petition was adjourned to 27^th June 2025. On 27^th June 2025, after hearing the parties, the aforesaid petition was closed for orders.

9. Mr. Naphade, learned counsel for the petitioner, with respect to prayer clause (b) submitted that the respondent No. 2 MahaRERA be directed to resume hybrid hearings, which were in place prior to COVID-19 pandemic. He emphasized that such a model ensures both accessibility and procedural efficiency, and aligns with the statutory objective of the Act namely, the expeditious and transparent adjudication of disputes.

10. Mr. Naphade, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on several provisions of the MahaRERA Regulations, 2017 and pointed out that Circular No.34A dated 8^th April 2025, issued in supersession of its previous Circular No. 34 dated 21^st June 2021, was occasioned by the pandemic. He submitted that the said Circular No. 34A carves out an exception inter alia for the complaints filed for non-compliance of the order passed by the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer, i.e. the complaint can be heard without following the chronological or seniority process. He submitted that the said Circular No. 34A does not lay down any process as to how cases under exceptions can be treated and listed/heard bef