The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to re-appreciate factual disputes in RERA proceedings when a statutory appellate remedy is available. The dismissal of the petition underscores the principle that procedural delays and factual challenges must be addressed through the designated appellate forum, not through constitutional writs.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Shree Samrudhi Developers & Ors., are promoters of the residential project "Aishwarya Heights" (formerly "Ashwa Conqure"). Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, homebuyers, booked Flat No. 1301 on 21.02.2011 for a consideration of Rs. 37,12,500. Disputes arose over delayed possession, non-execution of the sale agreement, and payment discrepancies.
Key Facts
- Initial payment by homebuyers: Rs. 5,00,000
- Total admitted payment via cheque: Rs. 11,00,000
- Petitioners claim additional cash payment of Rs. 17,00,000 was made, but not substantiated
- Revised allotment letter dated 14.11.2019: Flat No. 1303 allotted at revised consideration of Rs. 79,92,000
- Homebuyers filed Complaint No. CC006000000210225 before MahaRERA seeking sale deed execution, possession, interest, and compensation
- Petitioners filed reply on 09.08.2022
- Petitioners were absent on two hearing dates: 01.11.2023 and 07.02.2024, despite opportunities to file written arguments
Procedural History
- 21.02.2011: Original allotment letter issued for Flat No. 1301
- 14.11.2019: Revised allotment issued for Flat No. 1303 at Rs. 79,92,000
- 2022: Complaint filed before MahaRERA
- 09.08.2022: Petitioners filed reply before MahaRERA
- 01.11.2023: Petitioners absent from hearing
- 07.02.2024: Petitioners absent again; written arguments not filed
- 01.07.2024: MahaRERA order passed partly allowing complaint; directed execution of sale deed, interest on delayed possession, and adjustment of payments
- 05.12.2024: Non-Compliance Order issued for failure to comply with 01.07.2024 order
- 20.06.2025: Recovery Warrant issued under Section 40(1) of RERA
- 30.10.2025 and 25.02.2026: Recovery notices issued by revenue authorities
- 17.06.2026: Writ Petition dismissed by Bombay High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of:
- MahaRERA order dated 01.07.2024
- Non-Compliance Order dated 05.12.2024
- Recovery Warrant dated 20.06.2025
- Recovery notices dated 30.10.2025 and 25.02.2026
They also sought interim protection against freezing of bank accounts and requested remand to MahaRERA for fresh adjudication.
The Legal Issue
Can a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution be entertained to challenge a RERA order when the petitioner has failed to avail the statutory appellate remedy, and the dispute involves substantial questions of fact including payment verification and contractual interpretation?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners argued that the MahaRERA order dated 01.07.2024 was passed ex parte due to the negligence of their former counsel, who failed to communicate hearing dates. They contended that natural justice was violated and that the order ignored the revised terms dated 14.11.2019. They further asserted that the recovery proceedings were based on an inflated figure of Rs. 28,84,450, which included an unproven cash component of Rs. 17,00,000. They claimed that coercive recovery measures without a hearing were illegal.
For the Respondent
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 countered that the petitioners had filed a reply on 09.08.2022 and were aware of the proceedings. Their absence on two hearing dates and failure to file written arguments constituted waiver of opportunity. They emphasized that MahaRERA had considered the revised terms and that the cash component was not denied during proceedings. They argued that the petition was an abuse of process, filed only after recovery proceedings began, and that disputed facts cannot be re-examined in writ jurisdiction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the order dated 01.07.2024 was appealable under the RERA statutory framework, yet no appeal had been filed despite nearly two years having passed. The Court noted that the petitioners’ challenge was not merely procedural but substantive, involving disputed facts: whether the revised allotment superseded the original, whether cash payments were made, and whether the homebuyers were in default.
"The aforesaid issues are clearly matters involving disputed questions of fact. Determination thereof would necessarily require examination of pleadings, documentary material, rival factual contentions, the effect of the subsequent arrangements between the parties, the nature and extent of payments made, the correctness of the computations adopted and the consequences flowing therefrom. Such an exercise is not amenable to adjudication in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
The Court held that the petitioners’ claim of negligence by their advocate does not override the principle that parties are bound by the conduct of their counsel. The absence from hearings, even if inadvertent, cannot be grounds for invoking writ jurisdiction when a statutory remedy exists.
The Court further emphasized that the Recovery Warrant and notices were consequential to the MahaRERA order and could not be challenged independently without first challenging the principal order. The petitioners’ delay in approaching the Court, coupled with their failure to exhaust statutory remedies, rendered the writ petition inequitable.
The Court declined to entertain the petition on the grounds that it sought re-appreciation of evidence and factual findings, which fall squarely within the domain of the appellate forum under RERA.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Bombay High Court held that the petitioners failed to establish any ground warranting interference under Article 226. The MahaRERA order dated 01.07.2024, the Non-Compliance Order dated 05.12.2024, the Recovery Warrant dated 20.06.2025, and the recovery notices remain in force. The Court clarified that dismissal does not preclude the petitioners from filing an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority under RERA, and all merits-based contentions are expressly kept open.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Appeal Is Mandatory Before Writ Intervention
- Practitioners must exhaust statutory appellate remedies under RERA before approaching High Courts under Article 226
- Delay in filing appeal, even if due to counsel’s negligence, does not justify bypassing the appellate process
- Courts will not entertain writ petitions seeking re-appreciation of evidence in RERA disputes
Factual Disputes Are Outside Writ Jurisdiction
- Issues involving payment verification, contract interpretation, and breach of terms are not fit for writ adjudication
- Writ courts will not act as appellate forums for factual errors in RERA orders
- Petitioners must file appeals with supporting evidence, not rely on writ petitions to revisit findings
Recovery Proceedings Are Consequential and Not Independently Challengeable
- Recovery warrants and notices cannot be quashed unless the underlying order is set aside
- Challenges to recovery must be tied to the validity of the principal order
- Freezing of bank accounts based on RERA recovery warrants is lawful if the underlying order is valid and appealable
