The authority of the K-RERA to adjudicate on registration matters under the RERA Act was questioned but found appropriate for consideration by the 2nd respondent.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is submitted by the petitioners challenging the proceedings before the 3^rd respondent, based on the complaint submitted by the respondents 4 to 11 herein. The petitioners are also seeking a declaration that the 3^rd respondent is not the authority empowered under the RERA Act to adjudicate matters especially for the alleged violation of Section 3 (1) of the Act.

2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are that, during the process of considering Exts.P2 series complaints submitted by the party respondents, Ext.P6 order was passed by the 3^rd respondent, the adjudicating officer, holding that the project has not been registered under the RERA and hence matter was referred to K-RERA. The proceedings pursuant to Exts.P2 series were ordered to be kept in abeyance. On the basis of Ext.P6, now the K-RERA issued Ext.P7 show cause notice to the petitioners alleging violation of Section 3 (1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act in 2016, for not obtaining registration. The petitioners have already submitted a detailed objection as evidenced by Ext.P8 pointing out that, no such registration is necessary as far as the project of the petitioners is concerned. It was in these circumstances the writ petition was submitted.

3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the K-RERA and the learned Counsel for the respondents 4 to 11, I am of the view that, as the matter is only at the stage of show cause notice, it is for the 2^nd respondent to take a decision thereon, after considering the objections raised by the petitioners. Of course the petitioners have raised a grievance that, as per Ext.P6 the 3^rd respondent entered into a finding that the project ought to have been registered under Section 3 of the Act, which according to the petitioners was beyond the powers vested upon the 3^rd respondent. However, on going through Ext.P6, I am of the view that, it can only be treated as an order of reference to the K-RERA to find out whether the registration is required to the project of the petitioners, or not. Under no circumstances, the same can be treated as a finding. Therefore, the question as to whether the project of the petitioners requires registration, itself is a matter to be considered by the 2^nd respondent.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed, of directing the 2nd respondent to finalize the proceedings based on Ext.P7, after considering the objections raised by the petitioners in Ext.P8 and to pass order after giving the petitioners an opportunity for being heard. It is evident from the writ petition that, apart from the question as to the requirement of registration, the petitioners have raised certain other contentions with regard to the sustainability of the complaint raised by the party respondents by way of Exts.P2 series complaints. However, it is clarified that, all the contentions of all the parties are left open, to be decided at the appropriate stage by the appropriate forum.