Based on the provided legal document, the Supreme Court did not explicitly rule that the RERA Authority is solely a statutory body with only the expressly conferred powers, lacking inherent power to review or recall final orders. Instead, the Court clarified that the Authority's proceedings are valid even in the presence of vacancies or procedural defects, emphasizing that the Authority's powers are derived from the statute and that its decisions are valid unless challenged through appropriate appellate mechanisms (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the Court did not hold that under Section 18 of RERA, an allottee has an inalienable right to choose between receiving interest for delayed possession or seeking a full refund. Instead, the Court recognized that these remedies are alternative options available to the allottee, and once a specific remedy is chosen, the other becomes unavailable, emphasizing that these are not to be pursued simultaneously (!) (!) .

In summary, the Court upheld the statutory nature of the RERA Authority's powers, clarified the procedural aspects regarding its proceedings, and affirmed the alternative nature of remedies under Section 18, without suggesting that the Authority lacks inherent powers or that the allottee has an inalienable right to a particular remedy.