The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority to issue a circular extending the validity of project registrations and the potential impact on defaulters whose registration had expired long back.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

1. Case has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of COVID-19 Pandemic. Notice of motion.

2. Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.l-Union of India whereas Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2-State of Punjab.

3. Petitioner is aggrieved by circular dated 13.5.2020 (Annexure P-l) issued by Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab (RERA) whereby it extended the period of validity of registration of projects by six months in addition to the period that would be normally granted for processing the application provided application is made on payment of necessary late fee. Relevant paras of the circular are reproduced below for ready reference:-

"3. The Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab has considered the existing situation from all aspects and hereby determines that the current COVID-19 pandemic is a 'Force Majeure' situation for the purposes of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 in the State. In view of this, it has been decided as follows:-

a. For all registered projects where completion date or revised completion date or extended completion date is on or after 15 th March, 2020, the period of validity for registration of such projects shall be automatically extended by six months from the original date.

b. For all projects whose registration had lapsed prior to 15 th March, 2020 and in which applications for extension are under consideration, the period of validity for registration of such projects shall be extended by six months in addition to the extension period that would normally be granted on processing the application.

c. For all registered projects the registration of which has lapsed prior to 15 th March, 2020 and in which application for extension has not yet been made, the period of validity for registration of such projects shall be extended by six months in addition to the period that would normally be granted on processing the application, provided they apply for extension after paying the necessary late fee. In calculation of late fee, the period from 15 th March, 2020 to 30 th June, 2020 shall be excluded.

d. The time limit for all statutory compliances in relation to real estate projects and real estate agents, in accordance with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the rules and regulations made there under, which had become due till date is extended upto 30 th June, 2020."

4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that ostensibly the circular was issued to give relief to those projects whose registration was expiring on or before 15.3.2020. However, by virtue of impugned circular which is in the nature of a notification even term of those projects whose registration has expired long back has been extended by six months. According to him, power to issue circulars/notifications of this nature vests in the State Government and not in the adjudicatory bodies. At best, RERA could have entertained an application under Section 84 or 85 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. However, no such application was moved in the instant case. Learned counsel further submits that there are many similarly placed small time home buyers comprising two/three bed room flats who are suffering as builders have stopped work under the umbrella of the impugned circular.

5. A query was put to Mr. Jain as to the letter, Annexure P-2, issued by Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and effect thereof. He candidly submits that same is only advisory in nature and it is left to every State Government to consider the advisory in the light of the situation prevailing in the State and in the facts and circumstances of each case. The said letter does not contain the mandate to adjudicatory bodies to act in a particular manner. He further submits that for issuanc