Bombay High Court Upholds Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act, Strikes Down Section 46(1)(b)

Bombay High Court Upholds Real Estate Regulatory Authority Act, Strikes Down Section 46(1)(b)

Introduction

In the landmark case of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India, the Bombay High Court deliberated on the constitutional validity of several provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The petitioners challenged the legality of specific sections, arguing that they were arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 20, and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The primary issue revolved around the qualifications for appointing a Judicial Member to the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal as stipulated in Section 46(1)(b) of RERA.

Summary of the Judgment

The Bombay High Court scrutinized the provisions of RERA, specifically Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18, 22, 38, 40, 46, 59, 60, 61, 63, and 64. The court upheld the majority of these sections, affirming their constitutionality and alignment with the objectives of RERA, which aims to regulate and promote transparency in the real estate sector. However, the court declared Section 46(1)(b) partially invalid. This section, which defined a Judicial Member as one who is a member of the Indian Legal Service and has held the post of Additional Secretary or an equivalent position, was struck down. The court reasoned that such qualifications do not align with the intended role of Judicial Members in overseeing quasi-judicial functions within the tribunal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several landmark cases to frame its reasoning:

Legal Reasoning

The court adopted a harmonious interpretation of RERA's provisions, ensuring that they were read in context with each other to fulfill the Act's overarching objectives. It observed that:

  • The primary aim of RERA is to protect consumer interests and ensure timely completion of real estate projects.
  • Sections 3 to 8 regulate project registration, underscores accountability, and mandate the establishment of a Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.
  • The challenged provision, Section 46(1)(b), imposes overly stringent qualifications for Judicial Members, deviating from the intended mandate of overseeing disputes with judicial acumen rather than administrative expertise.

By partially invalidating Section 46(1)(b), the court emphasized that while expertise is crucial, the definition should not be limited to administrative positions like Additional Secretary, ensuring that Judicial Members possess the requisite judicial temperament and independence.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the necessity for balanced regulatory frameworks in sectors like real estate. Upholding the majority of RERA provisions:

  • Ensures continued oversight and accountability of real estate promoters.
  • Promotes transparency and standardization in real estate transactions.
  • Provides a clear mechanism for dispute resolution through the Appellate Tribunal.

Striking down Section 46(1)(b):

  • Prevents the composition of tribunals from being overly dominated by administrative officers, thereby preserving judicial integrity and independence.
  • Sets a precedent for the judiciary to critically assess the qualifications and roles assigned to members of quasi-judicial bodies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Retrospectivity vs. Non-Retrospectivity: A statute is retrospective if it affects actions or rights that occurred before it was enacted. Non-retroactive statutes only impact future actions or rights established after their enactment.

Judicial Member vs. Administrative Member: A Judicial Member of a tribunal should possess judicial temperament and independence, ensuring impartiality in adjudicating disputes. Administrative Members, while knowledgeable, may not inherently possess the same level of judicial restraint and objectivity.

Presumption of Constitutionality: Courts generally assume that legislation passed by the legislature is constitutional unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court's judgment in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India serves as a critical affirmation of RERA's role in regulating the real estate sector. By upholding the majority of RERA's provisions, the court endorsed the Act's intent to foster transparency, accountability, and consumer protection. The partial invalidation of Section 46(1)(b) underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that quasi-judicial bodies are composed of members who can impartially and effectively adjudicate disputes, free from undue administrative influence.

This decision not only fortifies the legal framework governing real estate in India but also sets a precedent for the composition and functioning of tribunals across various sectors, highlighting the balance between expertise and judicial independence.

Case Details

Year: 2017
Court: Bombay High Court

Judge(s)

Naresh H. Patil R.G Ketkar, JJ.

Advocates

Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Counsel a/w. Mohd. Himayutullah, Ms. Rujuta Patil and Ms. Niyathi Kalra i/b. Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah, for the petitioners in WP/2737/2017 (WPL/2010/17).Dr. Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Counsel a/w. Nikhil Sakhardande & Suraj Iyer i/b. Ganesh and Co. for the petitioner in WP/2708/2017 (WPL/2034/17).Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Counsel a/w. Ms. Rujata Patil & Ms. Niyathi Kalra i/b. Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for the petitioners in WP/2727/2017 (WPL/1967/17).Mr. S.U Kamdar, Senior Counsel a/w. Chirag Kamdar, Dhawal Mehta, Ms. Swapnil Khatri, Krishna Moorthy, Abir Patel, K. Vasania & Ms. Aditi Khanna i/b. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the petitioners in WP/2711/2017 (WPL/1965/17).Mr. Prakash Randive a/w. Ashwini Kathane, for the petitioners in WP/2255/2017.Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande a/w. Pralhad Paranjpe i/b. A.A Naik, for the petitioner in WP/2256/2017.Ms. Rujuta Patil and Ms. Niyathi Kalra i/b. Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for the petitioner in WP/2730/2017 (WPL/2011/17).Mr. Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General a/w. Amogh Singh, Kapil Moye, Vijay Killedar, Vaibhav Sugdare, Aditya Thakkar, D.P Singh, Ms. Indrayani Deshmukh, Ms. Geetika Gandhi, V.T Kalyan, Sandesh Patil and Nagendra Goel, Ms. Tamanna Naik, for respondent No. 1-Union of India in all Petitions.Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Advocate General a/w. Shardul Singh i/by Mrs. Sushma Singh for respondent no. 3 in WP/2727/17 (WPL/1967/17) & WP/2737/17 (WPL/2010/17).Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Advocate General i/by Mr. Amit Borkar for respondent no. 3 in WP/2730/17 (WPL/2011/17) and WP/2708/17 (WPL/2034/17).Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Advocate General i/by Mr. Akshay Shinde for respondent no. 3 in WP/2711/17 (WPL/1965/17).Mr. Siraz Rustomjee, Senior Counsel a/w. Trushar Bhavsar, Ranbir Singh, Mr. Jarin Doshi i/b. Malvi Ranchoddas & Co. for applicant/intervener in CHS/224/2017.Mr. Tanveer Nizam a/w. Mrs. Mariam Nizam i/b. Altaf Khan for the applicant/interveners in CHS/223/2017.Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Advocate General a/w. Ms. G.R Shastri, Addl. Govt. Pleader a/w Shardul Singh & Akshay Shinde, for the State in all Petitions.Mr. Darius Khambata, Senior Counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae with Ms. Naira Jejeebhoy and Pheroze Mehta.None for applicants in Chamber Summons (L) No. 306 of 2017.

Comments