RAJASTHAN REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, JAIPUR F.16 (2)RJ/RERA/COMP.NOTICE/2019 Suo Moto through Registrar of the Authority _..... Complainant VERSUS Genesis Infratech Pvt. Ltd. .... Respondent Present Hon’ble Shri Salvinder Singh Sohata, Member . Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Law Officer of the Authority present . Ms. Shruti Rai & Mr. Samkit Jain, Advocates present on ’ behalf of respondent Date of Order: 20.04.2023 ORDER The factual matrix of the case are that complainant Kartar Singh approached before the Authority through the Comp. No. RAJ-RERA-C-2018-2217. Vide order dated 14.06.2019 in the aforesaid case, it was directed by the learned Full Bench of the Authority that the impugned project “Genesis Flora” is an ongoing project, hence liable to be registered with the Authority. Therefore, a notice under section 3 read with section 59 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as‘the Act’) be issued against the promoter. A Suo Moto notice accordingly was issued against the promoter, and vide order dated 30.06.2022, it was directed to register the project within 30 days and in case of failure Rs. 3 lac penalty was imposed against the promoter. The aforesaid order was passed in the presence of the promoter-respondent and ample opportunity for hearing was provided to the promoter. The copy of the aforesaid order dated for registration of the impugned project, a notice on 04.01.2023 was issued for hearing on 12.01.2023. C On 20.01.2023, the Director of the promoter Company Mr. Pankaj Mehta was present before the Authority and assured the Authority for compliance after obtaining certain documents from Bhiwadi Industrial Development Authority (BIDA). The promoter was directed to be present for next hearing on 23.02.2023. The aforesaid hearing was deferred due to administrative grounds and case was listed on 03.03.2023, when it was again adjourned for 24.03.2023.It is pertinent to note here that in spite of the directions issued by the Authority on 20.01.2023, the Director of the promoter Company Mr. Pankaj Mehta opted for non-appearance before the Authority and on behalf of promoter Mr. Yogesh Sharma, Advocate as proxy appeared before the Authority and sought an adjournment. In view of the direction dated 20.01.2023 passed by the Authority, a penalty to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed against the promoter and case was listed for compliance of the ee) #Ppeal is preferred before the Hon'ble REAT. Therefore, requested not to expedite in the execution proceedings with regard to registration of the project. On query, it was responded that the stay rder by the appellate authority is not yet granted in favour of the promoter. The case in hand is having the pendency since 24.06.2019 with regard to registration of the project. Learned Full Bench during the course of hearing while passing the aforesaid order has categorically mentioned that the impugned project is an ongoing project, therefore, it is liable to be registered with the Authority under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. During the course ofhearing in the subsequent proceedings with regard to show-cause notice issued, the Promoter placed reliance upon the documents which were not found appropriate by the learned Full Bench of the Authority. Hence, after thorough examination a direction vide order dated 30.06.2022 was passed against the promoter for registration of the project. The promoter deliberately has not complied with the direction. The aforesaid directions dated 30.06.2022 and 24.06.2019 were pronounced in the presence of the counsels engaged by the promoter. Therefore, the promoter was very well ware with regard to the directions promulgated by the Authority. The promoter was having liberty to appeal/challenge the directions vide order dated 30.06.2022 within 60 days under the provision of section 43 (5) of the Act. While the Director of the omoter Company himself was present on 20.01.2023 before the D