Mrs. Salaka Modi vs. M/S Aasharshila Developers PVT LTD.

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner's counsel requested to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a duly constituted appeal before the concerned RERA Appellate Authority, along with an appropriate interim application. The respondents did not object to this request. The Court, in its order, noted that the RERA Appellate Authority is functioning and entertaining matters. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the alternative remedy before the RERA Appellate Authority. The Court further directed that if an appeal is filed, the RERA Appellate Authority shall consider it and any interim application expeditiously.

Facts

The petitioner, Mrs. Salaka Modi, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The petition challenged an order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA Authority), 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 04.01.2024. The petitioner also sought directions regarding possession, handover of common areas, penal proceedings against Respondent No. 1 (M/s Aasharshila Developers Pvt Ltd.), and compensation for delays and defects. The petitioner stated that she approached the High Court due to the RERA Appellate Authority not functioning properly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is legally obligated to pay maintenance charges and GST prior to the issuance of a valid Occupancy/Completion Certificate, as directed by the RERA Authority (Respondent No. 2)? 2. Whether possession offered or handed over prior to the statutory Occupancy/Completion Certificate is null, void, and illegal, and cannot form the basis for levying maintenance charges, in terms of Sections 11(4)(b) and 19(10) of the RERA Act, 2016? 3. Whether the Petitioner has a valid reason to approach the High Court directly, given the alleged non-functioning of the RERA Appellate Authority? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the RERA Appellate Authority was not functioning properly, justifying the direct approach to the High Court. The petitioner sought to quash the RERA Authority's order regarding maintenance and GST and sought various mandamus directions related to possession, handover of common areas, and penal actions against the developer. Respondents' Contention: Respondents No. 2 (RERA), No. 3 (Nagar Nigam), and the State counsel submitted that the RERA Appellate Authority was functioning and entertaining matters, including interim applications. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have approached the RERA Appellate Authority.