JUDGMENT :

M.N. Bhandari, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, JJ.

1. None appears for the petitioner though the case was called twice. Sri Wasim Masood has put in appearance on behalf of respondents.

2. The writ petition could have been dismissed for non-prosecution. However, taking into consideration that issue raised in this petition has already been settled by this Court in the case of Writ-C No. 27147 of 2020 (Ms. Proview Realtech Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others) and two other connected petitions decided on 12.1.2021, this petition is also governed by the judgment aforesaid.

3. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the recovery citation dated 13.3.2020 insofar as the same relates to principal amount (Annexure-1 to the present writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned order dated 20.8.2019 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure-2 to the present writ petition).

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling the record and quashing the minutes/resolutions dated 14.8.2018 alleged to have been passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition).

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the minutes/resolution dated 5.12.2018 alleged to have been passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).

(v) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction for striking down Regulation 24 (a) of the U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulation, 2019."

4. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by Real Estate Regulatory Authority (in short "RERA") dated 20.8.2019 though an appeal against the said order lies under Section 43 (5) of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (in short "Act of 2016").

5. It is a case where a complaint was filed by the non-petitioner alleging that despite payment towards unit No. A-2/307 in the scheme introduced by the petitioner, the possession of a unit has not been given. The unit (flat) was booked on 18.12.2013 and was to be delivered in the year 2019. The prayer was made for refund of the amount of Rs. 24,13,713 with interest. The Authority found that as per the agreement entered between the parties, possession of the flat in question should have been delivered by 2019. The petitioner-Company failed to show delivery of possession of the flat in question. Thus, taking into consideration the default of the Promoter (petitioner herein) and referring to the judgment of Apex Court, an order was passed by RERA on 20.8.2019 for refund of the principal amount alongwith interest. In pursuance thereof, order dated 20.8.2019 was issued for its execution. The amount of Rs. 25,36,985 was shown towards the principal amount while component of interest was Rs. 12,85,070. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge not only the order dated 20.8.2019 passed by RERA but the recovery citation dated 13.3.2020 on the execution application.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal against the order passed by RERA is maintainable but this case has exceptional circumstances thus even a writ petition would be maintainable. One member of RERA has passed the order going against the Act of 2016. Section 21 provides for formation of Authority consist of Chairperson alongwith two whole time Members. The impugned order is by one Member alone going against the mandate of Section 21 of the Act of 2016. In view of the above, there is no need to prefer an appeal as the order dated 20.8.2019 is without jurisdiction.

7. It is also stated that the order to award interest by the Authority is again going contrary to the provisions. Rules for award of interest was introduced in the year 2018. The amount deposited with the Promoter has been ordered to be returned with interest. The inter