THE RAJASTHAN REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, JAIPUR Suo Moto Versus RICCO Developers Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent File No. F.3(1795)RJ/RERA/C/2021 Present Shri Shailendra Agarwal, Hon’ble Member ZeXWAN RE, ea ) ‘x ae AimowS ly 1. Law Officer, Garvit Agarwal, on behalf of the Authority ! 70, < 2. None present on behalf of the respondent Date of Order: 01.02.2023 ORDER In the instant matter, a show cause notice was issued to the respondent promoter under sections 35, 36, 37 and section 38 read with section 7, 11 (1), 61 and section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and Rule 16(1)(D) of the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter called ‘the Rules’) for imposition of penalties and revocation of registration due to non-submission of Quarterly Progress Reports (QPRs) on RERA Page No. | of 4 F.3(1795)2021web portal. The said show cause notice brought to the attention of the respondent that under section 11(1) of the Act read with rule 16(1)(D) of the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter called ‘the Rules’), he was required to upload Quarterly Progress Reports (QPRs) on RERA web portal so as to update the project details available for public viewing. He was also reminded of the Authority's order No. F.1(167)RJ/RERA/ QPR/2020/12, dated 01.01.2021 read with clarifications/amendments issued in relation thereto on 04.01.2021, 09.03.2021, 25.03.2021, 31.05.2021 and 28.06.2021, 8 pammre ty S PERRY whereby he was directed to submit online the pending QPRs of all quarters upto the quarter ending on 30.06.2021, latest by 31.07.2021 and all subsequent QPRs within 15 days of the end of quarter; Upon a review of online project details, it had come to the notice of the Authority that the respondent had failed to submit online QPR(s) of the project(s)/quarter(s) indicated in the notice, within the time allowed. The show cause notice directed the respondent to show cause and explain as to (1) why a penalty of upto 5 percent of the estimated cost of the project(s) be not Page No Lof 4 F.3(1795)2021imposed on him under section 61 of the Act for the aforesaid violation of the provisions of section 11(1) of the Act read with rule 16(1)(D) of the Rules; (2) why a per-day penalty be not imposed on him under section 63 of the Act, for non-compliance of the Authority's aforesaid order dated 01.01.2021 as _ clarified/ amended from time to time; and (3) why the registration of the project in question be not revoked, under section 7(1)(a) of the Act, for his alleged default in submission of QPRs as required S, a =z m o 5 c by] <3) I, LA ia) ALigow eich under the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Rules and the directions issued under the Act. oy, The matter came up for hearing today. None was present on behalf of the respondent despite service of summons which leads us to infer that the respondent does not have anything to say in his defense. The non-appearance before the Authority despite service of summons is construed as wilful absence. Since non-submission of QPRs is a violation of section 11 (1) of the Act read with rule 16(1)(D) of the Rules which makes the respondent liable under section 61 of the Act to a penalty of an amount extending upto 5 percent of the estimated project as determined by the Authority. Such non-submission of the QPRs despite Page No.3of 4 F.3(1795)2021Authority’s directions contained in its order dated 01.01.2021 also makes the respondent liable under section 63 of the Act to a per day penalty which could cumulatively extend upto 5 percent of the estimated cost of the project as determined by the Authority. hereby imposed under section 61 of the Act. The respondent is directed to file the pending QPRs by paying the said penalty amount in addition to the delay processing charges within a . period of 30 days from the date of this judgment, failing which further penalt