Kerala High Court: RERA Cannot Decide Complaints On Merit Before Numbering, Hearing

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) cannot examine the merits of a complaint at the pre-numbering stage and reject it as not maintainable without affording the complainant an opportunity of being heard.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. delivered a significant judgment on July 23, 2026, quashing two orders passed by K-RERA that had summarily dismissed complaints filed by Renney Geo Varghese and Sindhu M. Poduval. The court held that the authority had acted without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice enshrined under Section 38 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Pre‑Numbering Dismissal: A Procedural Overreach

The two writ petitions arose from separate complaints filed by Varghese and Poduval against K.P. Krishna Varma, Angleplus Projects Pvt. Ltd., and Sujesh Sathyandran. When these complaints reached K-RERA, the authority passed detailed orders—dated May 25 and May 27, 2026—before even numbering the cases. The orders, marked as Ext.P2 in both petitions, held the complaints to be “not maintainable” after a “detailed discussion on the merits of the matter.”

Critically, the orders cited the pendency of proceedings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission instituted by an association of allottees as one of the reasons for concluding that the complaints were not maintainable. In both instances, the petitioners were not heard.

Arguments of the Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioners, Advocate Naseer Moidu, submitted that K-RERA lacked the power to pass such merit-based orders at the stage of scrutiny and numbering. He argued that the authority could not reject a complaint on maintainability grounds without first providing an opportunity of hearing. The actions, he contended, were an exercise without jurisdiction and violated the mandatory requirement of natural justice.

Court’s Analysis: Section 38 Mandates Natural Justice

The court examined Section 38 of the RERA Act, which vests the authority with powers to impose penalties and regulate its own procedure. However, sub-section (2) expressly mandates that the authority “shall be guided by the principles of natural justice.”

Justice Rahman observed that this reference to natural justice is not a mere directory guideline but a mandatory obligation. “To be precise, the reference of principles of natural justice in section 38, itself indicates the necessity of providing such an opportunity to the complainants or the opposite party, before taking a decision on the same and giving such opportunity, cannot be at the discretion of the 1st respondent, but on the other hand, it is mandatory.”

The court then turned to Regulations 8, 9 and 10 of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2020, which govern the presentation, scrutiny and numbering of complaints. It clarified that the scrutiny contemplated under these regulations is limited to verifying whether the complaint conforms to procedural requirements—such as the number of copies and accompanying documents. Regulation 9(3) provides that if a complaint is defective in form, it may be returned for compliance, granting the complainant 15 days to cure the deficiency.

Crucially, the court held that such procedural defects cannot include findings or adjudications on the merits of the dispute. “Nothing beyond the same can be insisted upon, at the time of numbering and a decision of question of merits of the matter cannot also be considered at that point of time,” the judgment stated.

Key Observations from the Judgment

The reasoning is buttressed by several decisive observations:

  • “The defect or incorrectness as referred to in sub-section (3) [of Regulation 9] can only be with regard to the procedural formalities in relation to the matters required for filing the complaint and the necessary documents to be accompanied along with the said complaint. Consideration of the issues involved in the complaint on merit, is not something is envisaged in the said regulations.”

  • “Under no circumstances, as such defect could include any finding or adjudication touching upon the merit of matter.”

  • “The impugned orders … are passed by the 1st respondent, without any jurisdiction and without fulfilling the statutory obligations vested upon it as per Section 38 of the Act.”

Decision and Implications

The High Court allowed both writ petitions, quashing the Ext.P2 orders passed by K-RERA in each case. It directed the authority to number the complaints without further delay and to consider the grievances of the petitioners on their merits after affording them a proper hearing.

The ruling reaffirms a fundamental principle of administrative law: quasi‑judicial bodies, including regulatory authorities, must extend the basic tenets of natural justice before passing orders that adversely affect a party. By striking down the pre‑numbering, no‑hearing rejection of complaints, the Kerala High Court has set a clear precedent that K-RERA—and by extension other RERA authorities—cannot short-circuit the process and decide merits at the threshold without hearing the complainant. The decision is expected to strengthen the procedural safeguards available to homebuyers and allottees under the RERA framework.

For petitioners Renney Geo Varghese and Sindhu M. Poduval, the door to a fair hearing on the substance of their complaints has now been reopened.