Karnataka High Court
Trishul Developers vs The Karnataka Real Estate on 14 December, 2020
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.5036 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN :
1. TRISHUL DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED
UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNESHIP
ACT, 1932, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
ADDRESS AT NO.111B
MITTAL TOWERS, NO.6
M.G.ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ONE OF ITS PARTNERS
MR. NIRAJ MITTAL
2. SHRI. R. NARAYANA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
3. SNT. N. BHAGYALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
4. SHRI. N. NAGESH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
5. SMT. SANGEETHA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
6. SHRI. N. ASHOK BABU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
7. SMT. N. HITHAVANI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
2
8. SHRI. BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
9. SMT. GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
10. KAMAKSHI B @ KUSUMA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
11. SHRI. BHASKAR R
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
12. SMT. SHWETHA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
13. SHRI. B. MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
14. SMT. ASHA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
15. SHRI. R. ADINARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
16. SMT. GEETHA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
17. SHRI. DEEPAK A
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
18. SMT. DEEPTHI A
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
19. SHRI. NAGARAJ R
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
20. SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
21. SMT. DIVYASHREE N
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
3
22. KUM. N. DEEPASHREE
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN
SHRI. R. NAGARAJ
NO.2 TO 22 RESIDING AT NO.117
BASAVESHWARA NILAYA
MUNESHWRA TEMPLE ROAD
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
MR. NIRAJ MITTAL ...PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI. DHANANJAY VIDYAPATI JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBLEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILIDNG
CSI COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS
MISSION ROAD
BANGALORE-560 027
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KUMARA PARK WEST
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560 020
REPRSENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
4. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
YELAHANKA TALUK
OPPOSITE YELAHANKA
4
POLICE STATION
BANGALORE-560 064 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R4;
SHRI. S.N. ASHWATHNARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SHRI. B.C. GOUTHAM, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO
EXTEND THE RERA REGISTRATION OF THE PETITIONER NO.1 FOR ITS
PROJECT, MITTAL PALMS, IN BANGALORE ANNX-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Shri Dhananjay Vidyapati Joshi, learned advocate for petitioner, Smt.Niloufer Akbar, learned AGA for respondent No.4, Shri S.N.Ashwathnarayan, learned advocate for respondent No.1, Shri B.C.Goutham, learned advocate for respondent No.2 and Shri M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned advocate for respondent No.3.
2. Petitioners- M/s Trishul Developers have approached this Court with a prayer to direct the RERA Authority to extend it's registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ('RERA Act' for short) which has expired on 01.08.2019. 5
3. Shri Dhananjay Joshi for petitioner submits that petitioner has sent an e-application for renewal/extension of registration in August/September 2019. The same has not been considered.
4. Shri Arjun Rao for applicant in I.A.No.2/2020 submits that in view of interim order passed by this Court, the complaint filed by the applicant who is one of the purchasers of the flat has been stayed before the RERA. Therefore, he is a proper and necessary party.
5. Shri Ashok B.Patil, learned advocate for applicants in IA.No.3/2020 submits that applicants have obtained orders of payment from the RERA authority against the petitioners. The same is pending before the Deputy Commissioner for recovery. Therefore, applicants are proper and necessary parties.
6
6. Shri Dhananjay Joshi submitted that petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the RERA Authority to consider the online application filed by the petitioner for extension of registration.
7. So far as prayer clause (b) to quash the payment orders passed by the RERA Authority in favour of applicants in I.A.No.3/2020, Shri Joshi submitted that petitioner will work out its remedy before appellate authority by filing an appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. None appears for respondents No. 1 to 3. Learned AGA appears for respondent No.4.
9. Having heard the advocates for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met by directing the RERA Authority to consider petitioner's application for extension of registration said to have been filed in August/September 2019 within an outer 7 limit of eight weeks from today. So far as prayer clause(b) is concerned, as prayed for by learned advocate for petitioner, petitioner may exercise its option of filing an appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, there shall be no coercive action for recovery from the petitioner.
10. This petition stands disposed of with the above observations.
11. In view of disposal of this petition, interlocutory applications filed for impleadment are rendered superfluous and they are accordingly disposed of. I.A.No.4/2020 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Yn.