File No: F.3(1 817)RJ/RERA/P/2021 Suo Moto through Registrar of Authority ...complainant VERSUS Shri Nandini Complex ...Respondent Present Hon’ble Shri Salvinder Singh Sohata, Member 4. Shri Abhishek Sharma, Law Officer present on behalf of the Authority 2. Advocate Mitesh Rathore & Shruti Rai present on behalf of the Promoter Date of Order: 13.04.2023 ORDER The brief facts of the case are that Promoter applicant has moved an application with reference to administrative directions dated 12.03.2021 for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 22.07.2022 against the Promoter. It is pertinent to mention the aforesaid order dated 22.07.2022 is a common order but Promoter-applicant has moved application dated 46.01.2023 up to extent of their interest only. It is evident that required fee for Page 1 of 6 File No: F.3(537)RJ/RERA/P/2017setting aside the order is deposited by the Promoter on 11.01.2023 and online application Form “x” is already uploaded on the very day. It is averred in aforesaid application that notices issued against the Promoter were un-delivered and notices issued against the Promoter through e-mail were not sent to the official e- mail ID of the Promoter. Therefore, the Promoter was un-aware about listing of the case before the Authority for hearing. Accordingly it is prayed for setting aside the order up to the extent of the Promoter and for fixing the case for re-hearing after of the Respondent-applicant were heard at length and record available on file was examined carefully. While examination of the file we noticed that the registration obtained with regard to the Project bearing the registration number i.e. RAJ/P/2018/819 and the copy of the Registration Certificate is made available on page No. 8/C of the file. However, the registration number of the project in the notice issued on 29.09.2021 is depicted as RAJ/P/2018/820. Therefore, to sort out the disorganisation, we called for the files from the record for the Page 2 of 6 File No: F.3(537)RJ/RERA/P/2017aforesaid registration numbers. The file related to Registration No: RAJ/P/2018/820 is reported not available and file for the registration No. RAJ/P/2018/819 was brought before the Bench for examination of the record. It is pertinent to mention, once we browsed on the portal of the Authority with regard to registration No. RAJ/P/2018/819, no such project found visible and while browsing the registration No: RAJ/P/2018/820, we were surprised to note that registration certificate appended to “on line” to the file is related to registration No. RAJ/P/2018/819, therefore, it appears that Project related to registration No. 819 and 820 for identical files altogether. Learned Advocate Mitesh Rathore reiterated the facts that copy of the notices for uploading the QPRs were not delivered to the Promoter and notice delivered through e-mail-ID do not prove Sufficient service as the said email-ID is not having any relationship with the Promoter. Therefore, the Promoter was not aware with regard to the proceedings initiated against the Promoter and hence prayed to award relief for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2022 up to the extent of applicant- Promoter's interests. Page 3 of 6 File No: F.3(537)RJ/RERA/P/2017The Law Officer of the Authority contended that notice through email-ID was sent on registered email ID reported by the Promoter while registering the project with the Authority. The notices through the Speed Post were not required to be despatched. The position of the Authority is abundantly clear and firm as service of notice is extended through registered email-ID. It was the duty of the Promoter to be well informed for the correspondence sent on said email. The Promoter was having an option to modify the registered email-ID in the light of administrative directions dated 09.03.2021 after remittance of fee. We thoughtfully considered rival submissions of the parties, the service carried out through email-ID gaurav.agarwal@i