Advocates:
SHILPA LIZA GEORGE

1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRA-ORDINARY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Writ Petition (Civil) No 150 of 2021

Upendra Choudhury

.... Petitioner

Versus

Bulandshahar Development Authority & Ors

....Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1

These proceedings have been initiated under Article 32 of the Constitution by a

purchaser, seeking directions in respect of a real estate project called “Sushant

Megapolis”, which is being developed by the fifth, sixth and seventh

respondents. The reliefs which have been sought, while invoking the jurisdiction

of this Court under Article 32, as noted above, are in the following terms:

“i.

…a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the

Respondent No. 1 & 2 to cancel all the agreements with

respondent no.5,6 & 7 and to ensure that all the projects

in which money has been taken from the buyers their

money is refunded or the same is constructed and

handed over in a reasonable period of time;

ii.

…a writ in the nature of Mandamus appointing a court

receiver or form a committee headed by a retired judge

of this Hon'ble Court along with other suitable persons

from different fields to monitor / handle the projects of

Respondent 6 & 7 in which money has been taken from

the buyers;

Digitally signed by

Sanjay Kumar

Date: 2021.02.16

17:53:27 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

Iii.

…a writ of mandamus, or order or direction to conduct a

detailed forensic audit for all the projects launched by

respondent no. 5,6 & 7 in its project under the Flagship

of "SUSHANT MEGAPOLIS";

iv.

…a writ in the nature of mandamus or order or direction

to conduct investigation by the CBI-Central Bureau of

Investigation of the large scale fraud and cheating done

by the officers of respondent no. 1 together with officers

and directors of respondent no. 5,6 & 7 as the state

agency has completely failed in its duty to investigate

the matter;

v.

…writ order or direction to direct all investigation

agencies such as Serious Fraud Investigation Office,

Enforcement Directorate and others to investigate the

money siphoned off by the respondent no. 5, 6 & 7.

vi.

…any other writ, order or direction in favour of the

Petitioner and such similarly placed persons, as this

Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.”

2

The above extract would indicate that the primary relief which has been sought

is (i) cancellation of all the agreements; (ii) refund of moneys to purchasers; and

in the alternative (iii) ensuring that the construction is carried out and that the

premises are handed over within a reasonable period of time. Incidental to the

above reliefs, the petitioner seeks the constitution of a Committee headed by a

former Judge of this Court together with other persons to monitor and handle the

projects of the developer in the present case. The petitioner also seeks a

forensic audit, an investigation by CBI and by other authorities such as the

Serious Fraud Investigation Office and Enforcement Directorate.

3

Mr Manoj V George, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,

submits that, in another project of the developer which is being implemented at

Lucknow, notice was issued on a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution

(Pawan Kumar Kushwaha and Ors. v Lucknow Development Authority

and Ors.¹) on 20 November 2020 by a two-Judge Bench of this Court of which

one of us was a member. On the above grounds, it has been submitted that it

1

Writ Petition (Civil) No 1001 of 2020

3

would be appropriate for this Court to issue notice and tag the writ petition

under Article 32 with the earlier proceedings.

4

On 7 January 2021, a three-Judge Bench of this Court [of which one of us was a

member] has dealt with the maintainability of a petition under Article 32 in

similar circumstances. In Shelly Lal v Union of India ², this Court declined to

entertain the petition. T