Writ under Article 226 not maintainable against regulatory order where statutory appeal available, issues involve disputed facts/law, and no jurisdictional error or natural justice violation; exhaust alternate remedies.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Petitioners have invoked jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for assailing an order passed by the Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)-respondent No.2 on 12.12.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short ‘the Act’) have been wrongly applied to the case of the petitioners. The same are not applicable to them as the land in question falls in a deemed planning area and is not part of notified planning area under the Himachal Pradesh Town & Country Planning Act; Number of plots sold by the petitioners does not exceed 8 and the total land development by the petitioners does not exceed 2500 square meters.

3. It is not in dispute and is also apparent from the perusal of the impugned order passed by RERA that objections to the applicability of the Act raised herein were also urged before the said authority. RERA considered these objections of facts and law. The issues were deliberated upon and thereafter the impugned order was passed on 12.12.2025, holding the petitioners to have contravened Section 3 of the RERA Act by developing & selling plots in a real estate project without mandatory registration and in violation of statutory provisions. Certain other directions were also issued in the aforesaid impugned order. Learned counsel for the parties have apprised that proceedings in question are still continuing before RERA.

4. The order passed by RERA is assailable before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, however, petitioners have invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to lay challenge to the same. For the maintainability of this writ petition in the face of availability of efficacious alternate remedy, reliance has been placed upon Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences & Anr. Versus Bikartan Das & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3339 of 2023, decided on 16.08.2023. Hon’ble Apex Court in this decision has considered the legal position governing exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution against the decisions of Tribunals, Bodies or Officers. The operative paras of the decision are as under:-

“77. The purpose of certiorari, as we understand, is only to confine the inferior tribunals within their jurisdiction, so as to avoid the irregular exercise, or the non-exercise or the illegal assumption of it and not to correct errors of finding of fact or interpretation of law committed by them in the exercise of powers vested in them under the statute. The accepted rule is that where a Court has jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which crops up in the case and whether its decision is correct or otherwise, it is bound to stand until reversed by a competent Court. This Court in G. Veerappa Pillai v. Messrs Raman and Raman Ltd. Kumbakonam, Tanjore District and Others, (1952) 1 SCC 334 observed:
“26. Such writs as are referred to in Article 226 are obviously intended to enable the High Court to issue them in grave cases where the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and such act, omission, error, or excess has resulted in manifest injustice. However extensive the jurisdiction may be, it seems to us that it is not so wide or large as to enable the High Court to convert itself into a court of appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the decision impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or the order to be made.”
78. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we ha