Pranav B Prem

The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT), comprising Justice Rajan Gupta (Chairperson) and Rakesh Manocha (Technical Member), has set aside the order of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Gurugram, which had rejected the project registration application of Inspire Parking Nest Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal held that the Authority’s order was invalid since it was passed by the Chairperson alone without the participation of the required quorum as mandated under Section 29 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA Act”).

Also Read: Tamil Nadu RERA Directs Alliance Group To Refund Money Deducted As Cancellation Fee To Homebuyer

The appellant, Inspire Parking Nest Pvt. Ltd., had entered into a concessionaire agreement with the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) and, on that basis, applied for registration of its commercial project before the Authority on April 8, 2025. However, the application was rejected by the Chairperson of RERA on June 30, 2025, acting alone, as one Member of the Authority was on leave and another had expressed temporary inability to participate in the proceedings. Aggrieved, the developer approached the Appellate Tribunal contending that the impugned order was passed without quorum and therefore lacked jurisdiction.

Before the Tribunal, the appellant argued that the RERA Chairperson could not have proceeded alone in deciding the matter, as the Authority under Section 21 of the RERA Act comprises a Chairperson and at least two Members, and Section 29 mandates that its decisions must be made with proper quorum. The appellant also argued that the Chairperson ignored key statutory provisions and materials on record, including inputs from the Planning Branch and the opinion of the Advocate General. On the other hand, RERA defended the order, asserting that due to urgency and the absence of Members — one being on sanctioned leave till July 11, 2025, and the other having conveyed his inability to participate — the Chairperson was justified in deciding the application to avoid delay.

The Tribunal, however, rejected this justification. It noted that the Member who had expressed inability to participate had not recused himself entirely but had clarified his willingness to give an opinion on any specific matter referred to him. The Tribunal found that the Chairperson proceeded “post-haste” in passing the order without waiting for quorum and that the case could easily have been heard later when both Members were available. The Tribunal emphasized that a decision taken without proper quorum is unsustainable in law and violates the principles of fairness and collective decision-making.

While referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2022), the Tribunal observed that Section 29 of the RERA Act prescribes the quorum for policy and regulatory meetings of the Authority and underscores that collective wisdom of the Chairperson and Members is required in such decisions. It stressed that although RERA must dispose of matters expeditiously, procedural fairness and statutory compliance cannot be sacrificed in the name of speed. The Tribunal also relied on the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor (1974), reiterating that bodies performing quasi-judicial functions must act fairly and adhere to procedural propriety.

Also Read: Tumakuru Consumer Commission Holds Shamika Indane Agencies Liable for Negligence in LPG Hose Replacement and Overcharging Consumers

In conclusion, the Haryana REAT held that the order passed by the Chairperson alone, without the participation of the Members, was without jurisdiction and therefore unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the Authority for a fresh decision, directing that it be reconsidered with proper quorum after examining the recommendations of the Planning Branch, the Advocate General’s opinion, and all other materials on record. The Tribunal further directed the Authority to take a final decision within six weeks of receiving the order.

Appearance

Mr.Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dhruv Lamba, Advocate Ms. Poornima Rao, ALE for the respondents.

Cause Title: M/s Inspire Parking Nest Pvt. Ltd V. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram & Another

Case No: Appeal No.547 of 2025

Coram: Justice Rajan Gupta (Chairperson), Rakesh Manocha (Technical Member)