AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
In the head note of the petition, the following prayers have been made:-
“Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ, order or direction, especially writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram Respondent No.2 dismissing the Rectification Application filed by the petitioner seeking rectification of order dated 20.01.2020, while noting the merits of the case, however, holding that the powers under Section 39 of the RERA Act are limited; AND/OR Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ, order or direction, especially writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.01.2020 imposing penalty of Rs. 30.48 crores upon the petitioner, being 10% of the estimate cost of the project exercising powers under Section 59(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (Annexure P-2) being ultra vires, beyond the scope of the Act, without legal competence and illegal; AND For issuance of any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case”
On 19.08.2026, this Court was pleased to pass the following order: -
“Present: Mr. Jai Aditya Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Dhruv Lamba, Mr. Tapan Kumar and Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocates for respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed reply, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the impugned orders are appealable and thus, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a short adjournment to answer the said preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents. Adjourned to 24.08.2026. August 19th, 2026”
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the above, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file a statutory appeal against the impugned orders. It is prayed that since the petitioner was pursuing the present remedy, thus, in case the petitioner files an appeal within a period of two months from today, then, the Appellate Tribunal be requested to decide the same on merits and not to dismiss the said appeal solely on the ground of limitation. It is submitted that against the order dated 20.01.2020, an application was filed under Section 39 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and that application was decided on 27.02.2023.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State has submitted that the liberty be also granted to the respondents-State to oppose the appeal, if so filed, on merits.
Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file an appeal against the impugned orders dated 20.01.2020 and 27.02.2023 and in case, the petitioner files an appeal within a period of 60 days from today, then, the Appellate Tribunal is requested to decide the same on merits and to not dismiss the same on the ground of limitation.
It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the case and it would be open to both the parties to raise all pleas on merits and the Appellate Tribunal would consider the same in accordance with law.