Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Bombay Division Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale has directed the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) to reinstate hybrid hearing facilities, enabling litigants and advocates to choose between physical and virtual appearances. The bench has mandated a comprehensive review of MahaRERA’s procedures, including urgent listings, execution of non-compliance orders, and pronouncement of reserved orders, within four weeks. It further instructed MahaRERA to update its operational protocols to ensure effective access to justice and transparency. The court emphasized that access to justice is a fundamental constitutional guarantee and cannot be undermined by procedural or technological constraints. The writ petition was disposed of with these binding directives, and compliance has been scheduled for monitoring on 4 September 2025.

The writ petition arose from grievances concerning the operational practices of the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, particularly in relation to delays and lack of clarity in the execution of orders and the exclusive reliance on virtual hearings. The petitioner, a resident of Mumbai, invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to expedite proceedings pending since March 2024 and to frame guidelines for streamlined and time-bound execution of orders issued by MahaRERA.

Also Read: Supreme Court : "Fraud Unravels Everything," Recalls Its Own Judgment and Sets Aside High Court Order in NOIDA Land Dispute

The primary relief sought was a direction to MahaRERA to pass final orders in a non-compliance proceeding that had been reserved for judgment on 21 March 2024. Additionally, the petitioner requested the framing of structured guidelines for execution proceedings, urgent listings, and hybrid hearings, which were previously discontinued following the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner argued that the absence of hybrid hearings has caused procedural inefficiencies, delayed justice, and denied parties meaningful access to the tribunal.

During the proceedings, it was recorded that the petitioner’s execution application had remained pending for over a year without final orders being passed. The bench, by an interim order dated 25 April 2025, directed MahaRERA to dispose of the pending applications within six weeks. However, with respect to systemic reforms sought in prayer clause (b), the matter required further adjudication and detailed submissions from all parties.

The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Aseem Naphade, submitted that prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, MahaRERA conducted physical hearings that allowed effective participation of litigants and advocates. Following the pandemic, MahaRERA shifted to a virtual-only model, which continues despite the restoration of hybrid models in courts and tribunals across Maharashtra and the country. He highlighted that hybrid hearings promote procedural efficiency and inclusivity by allowing participants to choose their mode of appearance.

Mr. Naphade also referred to Circular No. 34A dated 8 April 2025, issued by MahaRERA in supersession of Circular No. 34 of 21 June 2021. According to him, the new circular lacks clear guidelines for listing and hearing cases involving non-compliance of orders, leading to arbitrary delays. The absence of an effective mechanism for urgent mentionings and the lack of fixed dates for pronouncement of reserved orders were highlighted as serious procedural shortcomings.

The petitioner further argued that the current online filing system does not offer transparency. Complainants and their advocates often face uncertainty as communication channels with MahaRERA remain unresponsive. Letters or representations uploaded on the online portal do not receive acknowledgment, and litigants are frequently unaware of the status of their cases. This situation, according to the petitioner, frustrates the purpose of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), which emphasizes speedy and transparent adjudication.

It was also contended that the inability to physically mention urgent matters or to seek clarifications leads to prolonged delays. Mr. Naphade argued that builders and developers often benefit from these procedural gaps, as the execution of orders in favor of homebuyers is not promptly enforced.

The court recorded the submissions of the petitioner regarding the need for systemic reforms, including: (i) providing mechanisms for urgent listings; (ii) establishing clear protocols for execution proceedings; (iii) ensuring timely pronouncement of orders; and (iv) adopting a hybrid hearing model to accommodate both physical and virtual participation.

Written submissions were also filed by the RERA Practitioners Welfare Association (RPWA), through counsel Mr. Nilesh Gala, echoing the concerns raised by the petitioner. The RPWA emphasized the need for a robust procedural framework to handle the increasing number of cases before MahaRERA.

Respondent No. 2, MahaRERA, represented by Mr. Ravi Adsure, filed an affidavit through Mr. Prakash Sabale, Secretary of MahaRERA, outlining the authority’s existing practices. The affidavit stated that while hearings are primarily conducted through video conferencing, parties may request physical hearings, which the Bench may consider. It was also stated that the authority is making efforts to reduce pendency and has developed an IT complaint module for urgent hearings and interim reliefs.

However, the petitioner’s counsel countered that, in practice, physical hearings have not been allowed in recent years, and the existing virtual setup lacks efficiency. He argued that MahaRERA’s refusal to revert to hybrid hearings is inconsistent with the practices adopted by courts and tribunals nationwide, including High Courts, which have seamlessly integrated hybrid models.

The petitioner cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sarvesh Mathur v. Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1293), which stressed that the denial of either physical or virtual access constitutes procedural injustice. According to the petitioner, this precedent reinforces the right of litigants to choose their mode of participation.

The bench, after hearing all parties, noted the operational challenges and procedural delays highlighted by the petitioner and RPWA. It observed that access to justice should not be hindered by rigid procedural frameworks or technological limitations. The court concluded that MahaRERA’s continued insistence on a virtual-only model, despite having the infrastructure for hybrid hearings, was unjustified.

The bench made several critical observations, relying heavily on the principle of access to justice. It recorded: “Access to justice is a constitutional guarantee and cannot be reduced to a mere formality. Procedural fairness includes the right of parties to choose their mode of hearing, especially when both physical and virtual modalities are feasible.”

On the importance of providing multiple modes of participation, the court stated: “What is concerning, however, is the Authority’s continued insistence on a virtual-only model, despite the availability of both physical and virtual infrastructure, though all the courts and tribunals across the country, including in Maharashtra have adopted hybrid model.”

The court highlighted the objectives of tribunals: “Tribunals have been established with the object of furthering the cause of access to justice by providing speedy justice. The objective of RERA and MahaRERA is to provide speedy, transparent, and effective adjudication of disputes in the real estate sector. However, the absence of a structured mechanism for urgent listing, hearing, and execution undermines these objectives.”

Citing the Supreme Court decision in Sarvesh Mathur, the bench quoted: “Access to virtual hearings alone is insufficient. Denial of physical hearing, even when facilities exist, amounts to an unreasonable fetter on litigants' rights. The ability to choose one's mode of hearing is integral to access to justice.”

Regarding procedural transparency, the court noted: “A rigid adherence to chronology, without a mechanism for urgent mentionings or timely listing, risks defeating the very objective of the Act, namely, expeditious and effective redressal of grievances.”

On the practical challenges faced by litigants, the judges recorded: “Despite the existence of urgency, parties may be denied a short date of hearing, solely due to technical or procedural lapses. Furthermore, there may be instances where advocates or litigants are not entirely conversant with the technicalities of an online hearing platform. In such cases, lack of technological familiarity could effectively deny them access to justice.”

The bench also stressed: “Access to justice cannot be reduced to an ‘either/or’ framework. The ‘either/or’ approach adopted by MahaRERA is restrictive. The hearing mechanism must be ‘hybrid’, permitting the litigants or lawyers to choose the mode of appearance/hearing.”

It concluded by reiterating: “Ensuring procedural clarity, physical accessibility, and technological support are core elements of that right.”

The High Court issued detailed directives to ensure compliance by MahaRERA. It ordered: “MahaRERA shall, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, restore the facility of hybrid hearings, permitting parties to opt for either physical or virtual appearance, as per their convenience.”

The court further stated: “MahaRERA shall consider revisiting Circular No. 34A dated 8th April 2025 and its Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), particularly with respect to the mechanism for urgent listing of matters, execution of non-compliance orders, mentioning of cases (physically or virtually), and pronouncement and publication of reserved orders.”

It directed alignment with the Supreme Court’s decision in Sarvesh Mathur: “MahaRERA shall be guided by the directions issued by the Apex Court in Sarvesh Mathur (supra), and take steps to align its processes with the principle of effective and inclusive access to justice.”

On transparency, the bench ordered: “MahaRERA shall also maintain a register of praecipes submitted for circulation, production, or urgent listing, and shall record the acceptance or rejection of such applications. MahaRERA shall also upload its orders with a time-stamp indicating the date and time of upload.”

Also Read: Investing In Multiple Homes Still Qualifies For Capital Gains Exemption | Bombay High Court Says 'A Residential House' Meant Plural Before 2015 Amendment

Additionally, it required: “MahaRERA shall assign fixed dates for hearings and, in the event of an adjournment, shall indicate the next date of hearing to enable parties to remain informed and prepared.”

The authority was also directed to update its public interface: “MahaRERA shall place in the public domain, through its website, the relevant procedures and contact information (email, helpline, etc.) in a functional and transparent manner, including a calendar of Benches and cause-lists, wherever applicable, expeditiously.”

The petition was disposed of with these directions, and the bench made the rule absolute. No order as to costs.  A compliance review is scheduled for 4 September 2025.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Aseem Naphade, Advocate, with Ms. Chitrangada Singh, instructed by Clove Legal.

For the Respondents: Mrs. Vaishali Choudhari, Additional Government Pleader, with Mrs. Madhura Deshmukh, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1-State; Mr. Ravi Adsure with Mr. A. K. Saxena for Respondent No.2-MahaRERA.

Case Title: Mayur L. Desai v. State of Maharashtra & MahaRERA

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:11784-DB

Case Number: Writ Petition (L) No. 11502 of 2025

Bench: Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale