1

AFR

Reserved

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3209 of 2020

Petitioner :- Psa Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent :- Satbir Singh And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Tiwari

Alongwith

(1) Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3210 of 2020

Petitioner :- Rudra Buildwell Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent :- Ajit Kumar Jha And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Tiwari

(2) Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3225 of 2020

Petitioner :- Psa Impex Pvt Ltd

Respondent :- Vikas Saroj And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Tiwari

(3) Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3226 of 2020

Petitioner :- Rudra Buildwell Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent :- Tarun Malik And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Tiwari

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

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

2

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 16^th October, 2020 in Janta Land Promoters

Private Limited vs. Union of India and others ¹ 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

1

CWP No. 8548 of 2020

3

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