1

ITEM NO.24 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).1390/2020

SHELLY LAL & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

Date : 07-01-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Shikhil Suri, Adv.

Mr. Shiv Kumar Suri, AOR

Ms. Madhu Suri, Adv.

Ms. Shilpa Saini, Adv.

Ms. Nikita Thapar, Adv.

Ms. Vinishma Kaul, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1

A proposed construction project at NOIDA which did not take off from the

drawing board has given rise to proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution

by twenty five purchasers of commercial premises.

2

Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 32, the petitioners have sought, inter alia,

the following directions:

(i)

A writ, order or direction to the respondents to protect the interests and

investments of customers/buyers in the larger public interest;

Digitally signed by

Sanjay Kumar

Date: 2021.01.07

19:04:35 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

(ii)

A writ, order or direction for the revival of the project failing which the

amounts invested by the petitioners be returned with interest at the rate

of 18% per annum; and

(iii)

A court-monitored probe.

3

Having considered the cause which has been espoused by the petitioners

through their counsel, Mr Shikhil Suri, we are of the view that the exercise of the

jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution would not be warranted in the

facts of the present case.

4

Essentially, the writ petition requires the Court to step into the construction

project and to ensure that it is duly completed. This would be beyond the remit

and competence of the Court under Article 32. Managing a construction project

is not within the jurisdiction of the court.

5. Several provisions of law confer statutory rights on purchasers of real estate and

invest them with remedies enforceable at law. These include the Consumer

Protection Act 1986, the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 and

the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. Parliament has enacted a statutory

regime to protect the rights of purchasers of real estate and created fora which

are entrusted with decision making authority.

6. A decision of a public authority which is entrusted with a public duty is amenable

to judicial review. But it is quite another hypothesis to postulate that the decision

making authority should be taken over by the court. The latter is impermissible.

It would be inappropriate for this Court to assume the jurisdiction to supervise

the due completion of a construction project especially in facts such as those

presented in the present case. This will inevitably draw the court into the day to

day supervision of the project, including financing, permissions and execution –

3

something which lies beyond the ken of judicial review and the competence of

the court. The court must confine itself to its core competencies which consist in

the adjudication of disputes amenable to the application of legal standards. We,

consequently, leave it open to the petitioners to pursue the remedies available

in law.

5

The writ petition is disposed of, subject to the aforesaid liberty.

6

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(SANJAY KUMAR-I)

(SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)

AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER