Chattisgarh High Court
S. K. Gupta vs Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory ... on 5 February, 2020
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (C) No.3956 of 2019
S. K. Gupta S/o Shri J.P. Gupta, Aged About 62 Years Executive Engineer,
Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Division -4, Sejbahar, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (A Statutory Body
Constituted under The Chhattisgarh Real Estate (Regulation And
Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Chhattisgarh Housing Board, through Estate Officer and Executive
Engineer, Address Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Division Durg, District
Durg Chhattisgarh.
3. Shri Ravindra Kumar S/o Shri Sukhdev, Aged About Not Known, R/o Singh
Kirana Store, Milan Chowk, Camp No.2, Infront of Ramesh Paan Bhandar,
Ward No. 25, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
---Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Sachin Nidhi on behalf of Shri Y.C. Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent 2 : Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 05.02.2020
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is confined to the observations made by the respondent No.1 in paragraph 8.5 of the impugned order dated 17.12.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed in Case No. M-PRO-2018-00136 (Shri Ravindra Kumar Vs. Chhattisgarh Housing Board). For ready reference paragraph 8.5 of the order dated 17.12.2018 is reproduced hereinunder:
**iz'uk/khu izkstsDV ds lqijfotu esas dh xbZ ykijokgh gsrq mRrjnk;h lacaf/kr dk;Zikyu vfHk;ark ds fo:} dBksj ,oa leqfpr vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh gsrq lfpo] NRrhlx<+ 'kklu] vkokl ,oa i;kZoj.k foHkkx dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gSA**
2. The challenge to the said observation is firstly the respondent No.1 Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (in short, RERA) does not have power to make such observations as the dispute which could have -2- been decided or adjudicated upon by the RERA is to regulate real estate projects and real estate agents registered under the Act and other authorities which have been provided under Section 34 of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development Act, 2016 (in short, the Act, 2016). In addition, the RERA is also conferred with certain powers under Section 38 of the Act, 2016. A plain reading of Sub-section 2 of Section 38 of the Act, 2016 would clearly reveal that the RERA shall be guided by the principles of natural justice.
3. In the instant case, the primary challenge by the petitioner to the observation made is that before making such observation the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing. It is further contended that he was not a party to the proceeding at all. He was not aware of the development that took place before the respondent No.1. At no point of time was the petitioner permitted to produce his defence for the alleged irregularities, if any, on the part of the petitioner. In the absence of any such proceedings drawn, no such observation could have been made by the respondent No.1, particularly the observation which are detrimental to the interest of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner further submits that pursuant to the order passed by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 have initiated disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and at the fag end of the career when the petitioner is to retire on 29.02.2020, he would be put in great difficulties in getting his retiral dues etc.
5. The counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the impugned order in fact has been passed by the respondent No.1 and that they are not, in any manner, connected or responsible for making such observation.
-3-
6. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, particularly if we take into consideration the functions of the respondent No.1-RERA, as provided under Section 34 of the Act, 2016 and the powers conferred upon it as per Section 38 of the said Act, it clearly reflects that the RERA would primarily settle and adjudicate the dispute between the consumer and the builder (real estate agent) and as such the RERA did not have a power to make observations which would be detrimental to the interest of employee/officer working under a particular corporation.
7. Moreover, even if it is presumed that the petitioner had some role in the execution of the work or has shown any irregularities in discharging his duties, the minimum requirement was for issuance of appropriate notice to the concerned employee and thereafter reach to a conclusion whether he is at fault or not?. Without resorting to such proceeding, particularly in the teeth of Sub-section 2 of Section 38 of the Act, 2016, the strong observation made by the RERA to take serious disciplinary action against the officer concerned is totally uncalled for and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
8. The observation so made, therefore, being not sustainable deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The remaining part of the impugned order dated 17.12.2018 so far as the merits of the case is concerned, the same stands intact without being disturbed in any manner except for the observation which is made in paragraph 8.5 of the impugned order.
9. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder