Allahabad High Court
M/S Imperia Structures Limited vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 9 July, 2020
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 30 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9465 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S Imperia Structures Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kundan Rai,Rakesh Pande (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Manoj Kumar Singh,Shashi Prakash Singh,Wasim Masood Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Kundan Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents; Sri Anil Tewari, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Wasim Masood Khan, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5.
2. The petitioner is builder/promoter. It has preferred this writ petition against the order of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority dated 06.09.2019, under which the petitioner has been directed to refund a sum of Rs.13,97,400/- with MCLR + 1% interest. It has also assailed the recovery certificate dated 07.02.2020 issued by the respondent No.3.
3. The submission of Sri Rakesh Pande is that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction; inasmuch as, the respondent no.6 himself withdrew from the project on the pretext of his father's illness on 08.06.2017. According to him, the date of completion of project as per Real Estate Regulatory Authority registration was 31.12.2018, thus, there was no delay on part of the petitioner, even then the respondent authority recorded a finding against the petitioner.
4. Sri Anil Tiwari, Advocate has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as provided under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2016).
5. Controverting, the said submission of Sri Tiwari, Sri Rakesh Pande submitted that alternative remedy is no bar and further due to pandemic Covid-19 prevailing in the country, the Court may entertain the present writ petition. He further submitted that he is ready and willing to deposit 50% of the amount awarded by the Authority.
6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this petition with the following directions:
(i) If the petitioner deposits 50% of the total amount awarded by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority on or before 31.07.2020, the recovery proceedings shall remain stayed.
(ii) The petitioner may avail the statutory alternative remedy as provided under Section 43(5) of the Act, 2016 as expeditiously as possible but not later than 01.08.2020.
7. The aforesaid order has been passed with the consent of the parties and we have gone into the veracity of the claim raised by the petitioner.
8. It goes without saying that if the amount as indicated above, is not deposited on or before 31.07.2020 by the petitioner, the interim protection granted above, would automatically cease to operate.
Order Date :- 9.7.2020 / A.N. Mishra