Point of law: constitution of the Authority as prescribed in Section 21 of the Act is for the establishment of an Authority as a body corporate under Section 20 of the Act for discharge of its various functions with the power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, both movable and immovable, and to contract. This provision does not restrict power of the Authority to frame regulations to formulate rules of procedure for discharge of its statutory functions or mandates that the decision of the Authority should be a collective decision

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri Anubhav Singh learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Anil Tiwari learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Waseem Masood for respondent no. 2.

2. This bunch of writ petitions have been filed for quashing of the orders passed by respondent no. 2 namely the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby the petitioners (promoters) had been directed to refund the amount deposited by the allottees alongwith interest. Sole ground pressed to challenge the orders impugned is that single member of the Authority had no jurisdiction to decide the complaint of the respondents/allottees and, as such, the order is illegal being coram non judice.

3. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Authority as conceptualised under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (In short as “the RERA Act, 2016”) is the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (In Short as “the RERA or the Authority”), established and incorporated under Section 20 of the RERA Act, 2016 by

the appropriate Government.

The constitution/composition of the Authority is provided under Section 21 of the RERA Act, 2016 which states that the Authority shall consists of a Chairperson and not less than two whole-time Members to be appointed by the appropriate Government.

The complaint filed by the aggrieved person under Section 31 of the RERA Act, 2016 is, thus, can be adjudicated by the Authority, comprising of three members including its Chairperson. A Single Member of the Authority cannot constitute it so as to discharge the adjudicatory functions of the Authority or to exercise the powers under Sections 35 to 40 of the Act, 2016.

The orders impugned, therefore, are liable to be set aside being without jurisdiction.

4. The judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 16th October, 2020 in Janta Land Promoters Private Limited vs. Union of India and others, CWP No. 8548 of 2020 alongwith other connected writ petitions has been placed before us to submit that considering various provisions of the Act, 2016, it was held therein that the Single Member of the Authority cannot validly pass order on a complaint under the Act. Regulations 7 and 8 of the Punjab RERA (Procedure for Handling complaints and Related Matters) Regulations, 2017 by which a Single Member Bench of the Authority was entrusted to adjudicate the complaint, had been struck down as being ultra vires the Act.

5. At the outset, we may note that in the instant matter, there is no challenge to the provisions of the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2019 (In Short as “the Regulations, 2019”) framed by the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 85 of the RERA Act, 2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner rather placed regulations 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Regulations, 2019 to assert that if in any meeting of the Authority duly convened, the quorum is not complete, the meeting shall have to be adjourned. He submits that every meeting of the Authority to conduct its business has to be presided over by the Chairman. Only in case, where the Chairman is unable to be present in the meeting by any reason or the post itself is vacant, a Member chosen by the members present amongst themselves at the meeting shall preside. All questions before any meeting of the Authority have to be decided by a majority of votes of the Members. In any case, the quorum for the meeting of the Authority is three.

6. It is vehemently argued that in any case, under the scheme of the Act, the Authority, which has been entrusted with the powers to adjudicate on a complaint is a three Member body constituted under Section 21 of the Act. The decision of a Single Member is nothing but usurpation of power conferred upon the Authority.

7. Sri Anil Tiwari learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Waseem Masood appearing for respondent no. 2, on the other hand, places various provi