Point of Law:
Section 3 of the Act, 2016 provides for prior registration of real estate projects with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, and in terms of subsection (1) thereof no promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, in any real estate project or part of it, in any planning area, without registering the real estate project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri Wasim Masood, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

2. The petitioner is promoter of 'Paramount Golf Foreste' project. The respondent nos. 4 to 50 are allottees, who have filed complaints before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar. By the impugned orders, the authority has directed the petitioner to handover possession of the apartments to the allottees within sixty days and also to pay interest on delayed completion of project.

3. Aggrieved with the impugned orders, the petitioners have filed present writ petition.

4. This Court specifically confronted the learned counsel for the petitioners with the provisions of Section 43 (5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2016) and as to whether the petitioner would exercise the option to avail the remedy of appeal but the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he desired to raise a challenge to the jurisdiction of the authority to pass the impugned orders and in light of the same, he may be permitted to press the writ petition and therefore the writ petition may be heard.

5. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally heard without calling for a counter affidavit.

6. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner is promoter of 'Paramount Golf Foreste' project for construction of apartments. The respondent nos. 4 to 50 booked the apartments with the petitioner. The petitioner issued allotment letters dated 10.08.2011 to them. However, the petitioner could not complete the project within the given time and could not handover possession of the apartments to the allottees. Consequently, the respondent allottees filed complaint before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar alleging that the completion of project is delayed by more than four years and they claimed interest and possession of the apartments. Before the authority, the petitioner raised objection as to the jurisdiction on the ground that the project in question does not fall within the definition of 'ongoing project' as defined in Rule 2 (h) of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2016 (in short 'the Rules, 2016). The authority considered the evidence on record and also the facts noticed in the inspection made by the technical team on 24.07.2019 and recorded a finding of fact that the project is still incomplete and some No Objection Certificates (for short 'NOC') including NOC of fire fighting etc. relating to some technical work had not been obtained. The authority recorded findings of fact and passed the impugned orders dated 18.10.2019.

7. Aggrieved with the impugned orders dated 18.10.2019 directing the petitioner to handover the possession of the apartments to the allottees within sixty days and to pay interest on delayed completion of project, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the project of the petitioner is not 'ongoing project' inasmuch as the petitioner had applied for completion certificate with the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation on 13.10.2016 and therefore in terms of the provisions of Rule 2 (h) of the Rules, 2016, the project in question is not 'ongoing project' and consequently, the project was not required to be registered under Section 3 (1) of the Act, 2016, and the RERA Authority did not have the jurisdiction to look into the complaint made by the allottees.

9. No other submissions have been made before us by learned counsel for the petitioners.

10. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners.

11. The provisions of Sections 3 and 59 of the Act, 2016 which are relevant for the purposes of the controversy involved in the present writ petition, are reproduced below:

“3. Prior regis