The Karnataka High Court has clarified that the Registry of the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) does not have the legal authority to reject complaints based on maintainability. Only the RERA Authority and its members are empowered to make such decisions.
This ruling came from Justice M. Nagaprasanna while allowing a writ petition filed by Amit Garg, a Bengaluru-based apartment owner. The petitioner had approached the High Court after the RERA Registry rejected his complaint against a real estate developer via email on September 23, 2024.
"This power with the Registry is unavailable, as the complaint ought to be placed before the RERA Authority and the members of RERA will have to decide on the maintainability of the complaint," the Court observed.“Complaint has been rejected... as not maintainable. The relief sought by the complainant does not come under the jurisdiction of this Authority.”
Amit Garg had purchased an apartment in the Petronas block, a high-rise project developed by SJR Prime Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Disputes later arose between him and the developer regarding alleged deviations from the original sanctioned building plan. Seeking redress, he filed a complaint with KRERA. However, the Registry of RERA, without referring the matter to the Authority or its adjudicatory body, rejected his complaint on grounds of jurisdiction.
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Aditya Chatterjee along with Advocates Nikitha Surabhi and Akhila Balaji, argued that the Registry has no power to determine the maintainability of a complaint. They stressed that such authority lies solely with the RERA Authority or its members, and the Registry’s action was without jurisdiction.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Rules Land Value Not Subject to VAT Under Works Contract
The respondent RERA, represented by Advocate Gowtham Dev C. Ullal, admitted that the rejection of the complaint was indeed communicated through email and was not passed by the RERA Authority itself.
The Court emphasized that the Registry can only perform administrative functions and cannot undertake judicial roles, such as deciding whether a complaint is maintainable. Justice Nagaprasanna cited the Supreme Court judgment in P. Surendran v. State (2019), where the apex court held that registries of courts or quasi-judicial bodies are not empowered to take judicial decisions.
“The nature of judicial function is well settled under our legal system. Judicial function is the duty to act judicially... The High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition.”“It is open to the RERA to hear the petitioner and then pass orders on maintainability of the complaint or otherwise,” the Court concluded.
In light of this reasoning, the High Court set aside the impugned order and restored the complaint to the RERA’s file. It also directed KRERA to consider the complaint and pass appropriate orders, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
This judgment reaffirms that procedural propriety must be followed in quasi-judicial authorities like RERA. Decisions involving the rights of complainants cannot be left to administrative officers but must be handled by duly appointed members of the adjudicatory body.
Appearance: Advocate Aditya Chatterjee a/w Advocates Nikitha Surabhi , Akhila Balaji for Petitioner.
Advocate Gowtham Dev C. Ullal for R1.
Advocate J. P Darshan for R2.
Case Title: Amit Garg AND Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 34471 OF 2024
