Allahabad High Court
Ajnara Integrity Apartment ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 22 August, 2022
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13307 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ajnara Integrity Apartment Owners Association
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kunal Ravi Singh,Rahul Singh Dahiya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Verma,Pratik J. Nagar,Ravi Prakash Pandey
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Ref:-Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No. 3 of 2022
Sri Pratik J. Nagar, Advocate submitted that he has filed impleadment application on behalf of one of the elected Board members and two resident members of the Apartment, which may be allowed, for which learned counsel for respondents have no objection.
Accordingly, impleadment application is allowed.
Learned counsel for applicant is permitted to implead Ishwar Singh, Santosh Kumar Singh and Ompal Singh Chauhan as respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 during the course of the day.
Order on order sheet
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Sri Amit Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Sri Pratik J. Nagar, learned counsel for newly impleaded respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that impugned show cause notices dated 27.01.2022 & 11.03.2022 have been issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 2-Deputy Registrar (Firms, Societies and Chits), Viaks Vihar, Mohanpur Meerut who is having no authority to issue such notice. It is next submitted that in the present controversy, two acts are applicable; first is Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1860') which governs the registration of Society, election etc. whereas grievances of residents of Apartment are governed under the provisions of U.P. Apartment ( Promotion of Construction Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2010') and rules framed thereunder i.e. U.P. Apartment (Promotion of Construction Ownership and Maintenance) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2011'). It is further submitted that show cause notice has been issued for taking over the possession of certain unfinished towers, for which respondent No. 2 has no authority and competent authority is respondent No. 3-Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad who is defined in Rules 2(c) of Rules, 2011. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority and Ors.; 2013(9)ADJ594 decided on 14.11.2013.
Learned counsels appearing on behalf of respondents are not in a position to dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner.
I have considered the submissions made by counsels for parties and perused the judgment cited above as well as provisions of Act, 1860, Act, 2010 & Rules, 2011. Certainly, Act, 1860 only deals with registration of society, elections or any dispute arising out of election whereas any grievances of residents of Apartment pertaining to maintenance of building etc. are governed by the provisions of Act, 2010 & Rules, 2011, therefore, respondent No. 2 is having no authority to pass order. Respondent No. 3 is the competent authority under rule 2(c) of Rules, 2011 and is having full authority to redress the grievances of residents of Apartment, therefore, remedy lies before respondent No. 3. This Court in the matter of Designarch Infrastructure (Supra) has also taken similar view and held that competent authority is a person who is defined in Rule 2 (C) of Rules, 2011. In the present case, impugned notices dated 27.01.2022 & 11.03.2022 are issued by respondent No. 2 without having any authority of law, therefore, the same are bad and accordingly, quashed.
Writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
No order as to costs.
Liberty is given to all the aggrieved persons to approach competent authority i.e. respondent No. 3 for redressal of their grievances by filing application. In case, any such application is filed before respondent No. 3, it is obvious that he shall consider and decide the same maximum within two months in accordance with Acts & Rules discussed hereinabove after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned persons, if any.
Order Date :- 22.8.2022
Sartaj
