“Registry Has No Power to Reject Complaint”: Karnataka High Court Quashes RERA's Email Order, Restores Case, Warns Against Usurping Judicial Functions
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed the email communication issued by the Registry of the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) that rejected a buyer’s complaint as “not maintainable.” The Court held that the Registry lacked statutory authority to make such determinations, which lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of the adjudicating members of RERA. It directed that the complaint be restored to the file and considered by the competent authority after hearing the petitioner.
The petitioner, a resident of Bengaluru, approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an email communication dated 23 September 2024, issued by the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) through its Registry. The email informed the petitioner that his complaint against a developer, pertaining to alleged violations of the original sanctioned building plan, was not maintainable and thus rejected.
The factual background shows that the petitioner is the owner of an apartment in the “Petronas block,” a residential high-rise developed by the second respondent, a private real estate corporation. According to the petitioner, the apartment was purchased in 2013 based on promotional materials issued by the developer, promising construction in accordance with a duly sanctioned plan.
Over time, disputes emerged between the petitioner and the developer regarding alleged deviations from the original sanctioned plan. The petitioner subsequently filed a formal complaint with the RERA seeking reliefs that included a permanent injunction to prevent further unauthorised construction, demolition of alleged illegal structures, and a declaration that the revised sanctioned plan was illegal.
Upon filing the complaint, instead of placing the matter before the RERA Authority for consideration, the Registry of RERA issued an email communication rejecting the complaint on grounds of jurisdiction. The stated reason in the email was that the reliefs sought by the petitioner did not fall within RERA’s adjudicatory scope.
This action prompted the petitioner to file the present writ petition before the High Court. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the Registry has no power to adjudicate issues of maintainability and that even if a complaint appears prima facie outside RERA’s jurisdiction, it must be placed before the competent authority for appropriate orders.
The respondent authority, through its counsel, confirmed that the email was issued by the Registry and not by the adjudicating members of RERA. It was further submitted that similar complaints had also been rejected by the Registry in the same manner.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna recorded that “the issue lies in a narrow compass” and noted that the facts were undisputed. The key issue was whether the Registry of RERA could reject a complaint on grounds of maintainability without placing it before the Authority.
Quoting the email, the Court recorded the exact text:
“The relief sought by the complainant does not come under the jurisdiction of this Authority. Hence, this complaint (TMP/240919/0005744) is not registered as not maintainable.”
The Court stated: “This power with the Registry is unavailable, as the complaint ought to be placed before the RERA Authority and the members of RERA will have to decide on the maintainability of the complaint.”
Further, the Court stated: “If the Registry of RERA is terminating the proceedings in the manner that it has done now, it would be an act without jurisdiction. Therefore, this is a matter which is to be viewed seriously by the members of the RERA.”
The judgment drew on the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Surendran v. State [(2019) 9 SCC 154], to clarify the distinction between administrative and judicial functions. Quoting the decision, the Court observed:
“The functions of the Registry are purely administrative and cannot decide upon the maintainability of the petition, which is a judicial function.”
It further quoted:
“Judicial function is the duty to act judicially, which invests with that character… The distinguishing factor which separates administrative and judicial function is the duty and authority to act judicially.”
The High Court cited the apex court’s holding that a Registry “could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court.”
Based on these principles, the Court held that the email communication rejecting the complaint was not only irregular but also without legal sanction. The determination of whether a complaint is maintainable, it stated, requires the application of judicial mind by a duly constituted authority and cannot be delegated to or assumed by the administrative wing.
The writ petition was allowed. The impugned e-mail order dated 23.09.2024, passed by respondent No.1, stood quashed. The complaint registered before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) was directed to be restored to file. The Court further clarified that it would be open to the RERA to hear the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders on the maintainability of the complaint or otherwise.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri Aditya Chatterjee, Advocate along with Smt. Nikitha Surabhi and Smt. Akhila Balaji, Advocates
For the Respondents: Sri Gowthamdev C. Ullal, Advocate; Sri J.P. Darshan, Advocate
Case Title: Amit Garg v. Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:12445
Case Number: WP No. 34471 of 2024
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
[Read/Download order]
