Sahil vs. M/S Aadharshila Developers PVT LTD.

Facts

The petitioner, Sahil S/o Satpal Singh, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The petition challenged an order dated June 18, 2026, passed by the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (C.G-R.E.R.A), Respondent No. 2. The petitioner sought to quash the direction to pay maintenance charges and GST prior to the issuance of a valid Occupancy/Completion Certificate on January 4, 2024. The petitioner also sought various other directions, including the handover of common areas and initiation of penal proceedings against Respondent No. 1, M/s Aadharshila Developers Pvt Ltd. The petitioner approached the High Court directly, citing the non-functioning of the RERA Appellate Authority.

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the petitioner regarding the payment of maintenance charges and GST prior to the Occupancy Certificate, or the other directions sought. Instead, the Court noted the submissions of the respondents that the RERA Appellate Authority is functioning and entertaining matters. Consequently, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought and was granted permission to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a duly constituted appeal before the concerned RERA Appellate Authority along with an appropriate interim application. The Court directed that if an appeal is filed, the RERA Appellate Authority shall consider it, including the interim application, in accordance with law and endeavor to decide it expeditiously. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must generally be exhausted before approaching the High Court in writ jurisdiction, especially when the alternative remedy is functional.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition when an alternative remedy of appeal before the RERA Appellate Authority is available, particularly when the petitioner alleges the Appellate Authority is not functioning properly? (Question of law). The petitioner argued that due to the alleged non-functioning of the RERA Appellate Authority, approaching the High Court was justified. The respondents (RERA Authority, Nagar Nigam, and State) contended that the RERA Appellate Authority is functioning and entertaining matters, including interim applications, and therefore, the petitioner should have first approached the Appellate Authority. The respondents argued that the petitioner ought to have availed the statutory remedy before filing the writ petition.