Allahabad High Court
M/S T.G.B. Realty Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 17 October, 2019
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Saral Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32301 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S T.G.B. Realty Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishir Sripat,Rahul Sripat(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satendra Pratap Singh,Vivek Saran,Wasim Masood Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Shreepat,Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Atipriya Gautam learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Wasim Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 3 and 8, Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 and Sri Vivek Saran for respondent no. 2.
The petitioner is a builder and its project Neel Gagan, Siddhartha Vihar, Ghaziabad is registered under the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (in short RERA).
The petitioner by means of this writ petition has made a prayer for quashing of the orders dated 10.4.2018 dated 27.4.2019 passed by the RERA in complaint case no. 1120173596 Prakash Chandra Agrawal Vs.M/s. TGB Reality Private Limited and for quashing of the recovery certificate dated 17.8.1999 and the recovery citation dated 12.9.2019 issued in pursuance to the aforesaid orders.
Sri Rahul Sripat submits that both the above orders have been passed without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The complainant has given the wrong address of the petitioner in the complaint and the notice was sent on the wrong address which was never served upon the petitioner. The complaint is completely false and is not tenable. The complainant has manipulated and obtained the aforesaid order so as to put pressure upon the petitioner.
If the petitioner has not been served with any notice or given opportunity of hearing, the remedy is by way of an application for recall of the impugned orders before the RERA.
Sri Rahul Shripat at this stage submits that the RERA is not entertaining the recall application for the reason that there is no provision under the Act for the said purpose.
The petitioner is not asking for review of any of the orders passed by the RERA rather it is asking for recall of the orders on the ground that the notice was never served upon him and that it was denied opportunity of hearing. A recall application of such a nature falls within the purview of the procedural review rather than a substantive review.
The power of substantive review alone can be exercised, if such a power is conferred under the relevant Act or the Statute but this not the position in regard to dealing with application (s) for the procedural review.
It is well recognized that every court/tribunal has an inherent power of procedural review and the same can not be denied to the petitioner merely for the reason that there is no provision to that effect in the Act/Statute.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to apply for recall of the two orders impugned in this writ petition passed by the RERA. In case any such recall application/(s) are filed, the RERA would entertain the same and dispose them of in accordance with law most expeditiously, if possible, within a period of one month from the date of the filing of such application (s).
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.10.2019 SKS