Allahabad High Court
Ashmeet Singh Bhatia vs State Of U.P. And 14 Others on 12 December, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:194939-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35681 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ashmeet Singh Bhatia Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 14 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ujjawal Satsangi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh,Rahul Sahai,Syed Fahim Ahmed Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. The petitioner claims to be an allottee in a housing scheme allegedly floated by respondent no.12 i.e. Granite Gate Properties Private Limited, a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 presently undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming himself to be representative of the entire body of allottees/homebuyers of respondent no.12.
2. The petition has been filed impleading the said company and various other companies alleged to be the sister/subsidiary companies of respondent no.12. He has prayed for cancellation of allotment letters dated 10.09.2014, 17.10.2014, 16.03.2015 and 16.04.2015 issued by respondent 2, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority in favour of respondents no. 5 to 11, all Private Limited Companies and for a further direction to respondents no.3 and 4 i.e. the Directorate of Enforcement and the Serious Fraud Investigation Office to investigate into the affairs of respondents no. 5 to 11 along with their associates companies / sister concerns / subsidiaries of Lotus Greens Construction Private Limited, personal assets of their promoters / family members of Mr. Nirmal Singh, Director but not limited to movement of funds allegedly siphoned of / collected from innocent home buyers such as the petitioner.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for NOIDA as regards locus of petitioner to claim such sweeping reliefs. It is submitted that petitioner claims himself to be an individual allottee in a scheme floated by respondent no.12. It is submitted that the association of apartment owners has not come forward to claim such a relief. The petitioner has not disclosed how he claims to represent the entire body of allottees/homebuyers. He further submits that the sub-lease deeds in question were executed way back in the years 2014-15 and therefore, there appears no justification on the part of the petitioner to seek cancellation of the said allotment letters / lease deeds particularly when the petitioner has no concern with the same. His only grievance is regarding non-completion of his flat by respondent no. 12 and for which petitioner has adequate remedies provided under different statutes.
4. On a query made by the Court from Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Sri Ujjawal Satsangi on behalf of the petitioner as to why association of apartment owners has not come forward in case there is any collective grievance of the flat owners regarding siphoning of money, he fails to disclose any reason. He also fails to explain how the petitioner claims himself to be representative of all allottees/homebuyers, particularly when no such authority letter has been filed. He only submits that a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ-C No. 41110 of 2019 (Nirmal Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others) has permitted holding of an enquiry by Enforcement Directorate against respondent no.13, Nirmal Singh. Sri Anil Bhushan further submits that Three C Properties Private Limited is the parent company and the respondents' companies are its subsidiaries or sister concerns and Insolvency Petition has been admitted against Three C Properties Private Limited and the proceedings are pending before NCLT.
5. Be that as it may, as Three C Properties Private Limited is not the party to the instant petition, therefore, we refrain from making any observation in this behalf.
6. We are of the opinion that in case the developer has failed to fulfill the promise made to the petitioner regarding completion of flat, it is open to the petitioner to avail the remedy provided to him under the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 or by such other mode as may be advised.
7. We are not inclined to enter into the wide issues sought to be raised in the instant petition at the behest of the petitioner an individual allottee of respondent no.12, company.
8. Accordingly, without going into the merits, the petition is dismissed for want of locus.
9. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate along with Syed Fahim Ahmad, Advocate are present for respondent no.10.
Order Date :- 12.12.2024 Ashish Pd.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)