Prashant Rama Surarna And ORS. v. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Mumbai And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2029/2021 Prashant Rama Suvarna & Ors.

..... Petitioners Vs.

Maha RERA & Ors.

..... Respondents Mr. Amrut Joshi I/b. Nilam Shinde for the Petitioners Mr.Ashutosh M. Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Akshay A. Kulkarni for the Respondent No.1.

Ms. Ritika Agarwal a/w. Rajshree Mukherjee I/b. Acelegal for Respondent No.2.

CORAM:

K.K.TATED & RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, JJ.

DATED :

JULY 1, 2021 (VIDEO CONFERENCING) P.C.

Heard. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking direction against Respondent No.1 Maha RERA to hear their complaint along with Interim Application, as early as possible.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had filed in all 13 complaints which are as under:

1/4

Cause Title Complaint No.

Complaint filing date Pramod Suvarna CC006000000193465 14th July 2020 Chirag Thakur Mrs.

Yamini Ghirag Thakur CC006000000193487 15th July 2020 Naveen Kayakkal Mrs. Ramya Naveen CC006000000193496 15th July 2020 Anurag Shanker CC006000000193501 16th July 2020 Vishal Desale Mrs. Madhumati Vishal Desale CC006000000193503 15th July 2020 Rahul Kanchan CC006000000193507 16th July 2020 Praveen Karkera Mrs. Saroja Praveen Karkera CC006000000193514 17th July 2020 Bharat Patil Mrs. Kirti Bharat Patil CC006000000193519 17th July 2020 Sachin Poojary Mrs. Sujata S. Poojary CC006000000193527 17th July 2020 Joseph Rockey CC006000000193535 18th July 2020 Sanjay Kumar Bagel Mrs. Manju Vishwa Kumar Baghel CC006000000193542 20th July Aaradhy Chaudhary Mrs. Rekha Singh CC006000000193674 6th August Sandeep Tramak Aher CC00600000019370 6th August The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner, time and again, made an Application for early hearing by their Applications dated 27.08.2020, 02.09.2020, 07.09.2020 and 19.10.2020. He submits that in spite of several Applications for early hearing the Respondent No.1 has not granted any circulation. Hence, the Writ Petition.

2/4

The learned counsel for the Petitioners further made a statement before this court that the Respondent has granted circulation of a matter which was filed subsequent to the Petitioner's complaint. In support of this contention, he relies on Email dated 02.03.2021, Exhibit-F, page 170 to the petition.

The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that in the interest of justice, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 to hear the Petitioners' Application for interim relief as early as possible, as they are suffering because of the negligence on the part of the Builder/Developer.

We heard both sides at length. It is to be noted that, in the present proceedings, the Petitioners filed their complaint in the month of July 2020. Considering the present COVID-19 situation and as Respondent No.1 is functioning through video conference, we do not find any reason to entertain such type of petition to direct Respondent No.1 to decide the application made by the Petitioner, immediately, but in any case, considering the urgency in the matter, we permit the Advocate for the Petitioner to make an appropriate Application before Respondent No.1 explaining their urgency and if such Application is made, Respondent No.1 to consider the same on its own merits.

In view of the above mentioned discussion, the following order is passed:

3/4

a.

The Writ Petition stands rejected with liberty as stated hereinabove.

b.

No order as to costs.

(RIYAZ I. CHAGLA, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.) 4/4