Smita Chawda vs. Aadharshila Developers PVT LTD.

Facts

The petitioner, Smita Chawda, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur challenging an order dated June 18, 2026, passed by the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). The RERA order directed the petitioner to pay maintenance charges and GST prior to the issuance of a valid Occupancy/Completion Certificate on January 4, 2024. The petitioner sought to quash this part of the order, arguing that possession offered before the statutory certificate is void and cannot be the basis for levying maintenance charges. The petitioner also sought other directions related to the handover of common areas and penal proceedings against the developer. 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 validity of maintenance charges and GST levied prior to the Occupancy/Completion Certificate, or the other directions sought. Instead, the Court noted the submissions of the respondents that the RERA Appellate Authority was functioning and entertaining matters. The petitioner's counsel then sought permission to withdraw the petition to file an appeal before the RERA Appellate Authority. The Court granted this request, dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to file the appeal. The Court directed the RERA Appellate Authority to consider the appeal and any interim application expeditiously.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative remedy of appeal before the RERA Appellate Authority is available, particularly concerning an order passed by the RERA Authority under the RERA Act, 2016. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner approached the High Court because the RERA Appellate Authority was not functioning properly, necessitating direct intervention by the High Court. Respondent RERA's contention: The RERA Appellate Authority is functioning and entertaining matters, including interim applications, and therefore, the petitioner ought to have approached the Appellate Authority first. Respondent Nagar Nigam's contention: The RERA Appellate Authority is functioning and entertaining applications for stay and passing appropriate orders. State counsel's contention: The State counsel submitted to the same effect as the RERA and Nagar Nigam respondents.