Sanjay Ghiya S/O Late Shri Ram Narain Ghiya vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, was appointed by the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) to represent it before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority Tribunal. The petitioner appeared on August 1, 2018, but the Tribunal refused to take his submissions on record, stating that Chartered Accountants are barred from appearing before it. Subsequently, the JDA attempted to appoint an advocate, but the Tribunal, in an order dated August 2, 2018, reiterated that the petitioner and another Chartered Accountant were not maintainable representatives for the respondent (JDA). The petitioner challenged Section 56 of the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the Tribunal's orders, arguing it unconstitutionally denies respondents the right to representation by Chartered Accountants.

Held

The Court held that the distinction made for the non-inclusion of the word 'Respondent' under Section 56 of the RERA Act is illegal. The Court declared Section 56 of the Act of 2016 as read-down to include the word 'respondent'. The reasoning was that the exclusion of respondents from the right of representation was discriminatory and unconstitutional. The Court applied the principle of reading down legislation to save it from unconstitutionality. The ratio decidendi is that provisions restricting fundamental rights, if not based on rational classification, can be read down to uphold constitutional validity. The operative direction was to read down Section 56 to include 'respondent' in the list of parties who can be represented by Chartered Accountants or other authorized professionals. The Court allowed the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 56 of the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which grants the right of representation only to the applicant or appellant, and not to the respondent, is unconstitutional and violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that the exclusion of 'respondent' from the right of representation is discriminatory and irrational, violating the principle of equality and the right to practice a profession. The petitioner contended that the classification between applicant/appellant and respondent is not based on any intelligible differentia and thus contravenes Article 14. The petitioner also argued that this restriction infringes upon their fundamental right to practice their profession as Chartered Accountants, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). The revenue or State did not record any arguments in the provided text.