Bombay High Court
Mayur L Desai vs State Of Maharashtra Through Ministry ... on 24 July, 2025
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere
Digitally
signed by
SHAGUFTA
2025:BHC-OS:11784-DB
SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN
QUTBUDDIN PATHAN
PATHAN Date: WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
2025.07.24
17:53:37
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.11502 OF 2025
Mayur L. Desai
adult Indian inhabitant Aged - 44 years
residing at 501, Shree Swami CHS,
Plot No. 220 RDP-5
Charkop, Kandivali (West),
Mumbai - 400 067
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Ministry of Law and
Judiciary, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
2. Maharashtra Real Estate
Regulatory Authority
Housefin Bhavan, Plot No. C-21
E-Block, Near RBI,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051. ... Respondents
Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w Ms. Chitrangada Singh i/b Clove Legal
for the Petitioner
Mrs. Vaishali Choudhari, Addl. G.P a/w Mrs. Madhura
Deshmukh, A.G.P for the Respondent No.1-State
Mr. Ravi Adsure a/w Mr. A. K. Saxena for the Respondent No.
2- MahaRERA
Mr. Prakash Sabale, Secretary, MahaRERA is present
SQ Pathan 1/26
::: Uploaded on - 24/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2025 22:21:05 :::
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 27th JUNE 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24th JULY 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) :
1 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2 Rule. Learned Addl. G.P waives service on behalf of
the respondent No.1-State and Mr. Adsure waives service on
behalf of the respondent No.2-MahaRERA.
3 Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of
the parties and is taken up for final disposal.
4 By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following
substantive reliefs:
"a) a direction to the Respondent No.2-Maharashtra
Real Estate Regulatory Authority to expeditiously and in
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
a time bound manner pass the final order in the
execution/non-compliance proceedings being
CC006000000195324/ APPL/NC/2 in the Complaint
No. CC006000000195324 of 2020, which was reserved
for orders on 21.03.2024;
b) to frame guidelines to streamline the process of
execution of orders passed by Respondent No. 2-
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority
including but not limited to (i) providing a mechanism
for mentioning matters, (ii) conducting hearings
immediately after filing of execution proceedings and
(iii) expeditious disposal of execution proceedings."
5 As far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, vide order
dated 25th April 2025, we had, having regard to the fact that the
petitioner's application was pending since March 2024, requested
the respondent No.2-Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory
Authority ('MahaRERA') to dispose of the petitioner's execution
applications and pass final orders within a period of six weeks.
6 As far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2-MahaRERA had initially sought
time to obtain instructions. Accordingly, the matter was
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
adjourned to 29th April 2025. On 29th April 2025, learned counsel
for respondent No.2 again sought further time to take
instructions with respect to the commencement of hybrid
hearings, as was the practice prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. In
view thereof, the matter was adjourned to 30 th April 2025.
7 On 30th April 2025, we heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, and directed
them to file their written submissions. Pursuant to the said
direction, all parties submitted their respective written
submissions. Learned counsel Mr. Nilesh Gala also submitted
written submissions on behalf of the RERA Practitioners Welfare
Association (`RPWA').
8 Although the petition was closed for orders, whilst
going through the papers, as there were some queries which were
left unanswered by the counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2-MahaRERA, we again listed the petition on 25 th June 2025.
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
On the said date, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.2-MahaRERA, sought time to take instructions. Accordingly,
the petition was adjourned to 27th June 2025. On 27th June
2025, after hearing the parties, the aforesaid petition was closed
for orders.
9 Mr. Naphade, learned counsel for the petitioner, with
respect to prayer clause (b) submitted that the respondent No. 2
MahaRERA be directed to resume hybrid hearings, which were in
place prior to COVID-19 pandemic. He emphasized that such a
model ensures both accessibility and procedural efficiency, and
aligns with the statutory objective of the Act namely, the
expeditious and transparent adjudication of disputes.
10 Mr. Naphade, learned counsel for the petitioner
relied on several provisions of the MahaRERA Regulations, 2017
and pointed out that Circular No.34A dated 8 th April 2025,
issued in supersession of its previous Circular No. 34 dated 21 st
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
June 2021, was occasioned by the pandemic. He submitted that
the said Circular No. 34A carves out an exception inter alia for
the complaints filed for non-compliance of the order passed by
the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer, i.e. the complaint can
be heard without following the chronological or seniority
process. He submitted that the said Circular No. 34A does not
lay down any process as to how cases under exceptions can be
treated and listed/heard before the Authority. He submitted that
there is a need for issuance of guidelines so as to regulate the
proceedings conducted by the Authority including that of
execution of its orders keeping in mind the mandate of the
MahaRERA Act and the Regulations thereunder, so as to give
meaning and effect to the Act and the Regulations. He further
submitted that whereas there is a provision for speedy disposal of
application/complaint before the Authority, there is no structured
mechanism in place for disposal of execution/non-compliance of
proceedings in respect of the orders passed by the Authority. He
further submitted that there also exists no mechanism for getting
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
a matter listed on a specified or certain date, for the first time or
any subsequent date in any proceeding before the Authority,
including for non-compliance/execution proceeding. According
to Mr. Naphade, even after the parties get an order in their
favour from the Adjudicating Officer, the parties are unable to
bear the fruits of the order, for want of effective execution of the
same, which often results/enures to the advantage of the
builders/promoters/ developers.
11 Mr. Naphade further submitted that a complaint is
required to be filed on-line by the complainant on the website of
the Authority and that the Authority lists the matter for the first
time at its own discretion, only through video-conferencing
before the Authority. He submitted that the complainant or his
advocate is sent an intimation of hearing only through e-mail and
that there is no mechanism of mentioning the matter physically or
virtually before the Authority, in case of any urgency or
otherwise. He further submitted that despite attempts being
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
made to write letters to the Office of the Authority, which are
directed to be uploaded on-line on the Filing Portal, there is no
way for the complainant to know whether the said letter sent by
the complainant has been taken cognizance of or acted upon.
Thus, frustrating the very object of the MahaRERA Act.
12 Mr. Naphade submitted that prior to the COVID-19
pandemic, the Authority was functioning physically and all parties
and advocates had the opportunity to appear in-person before the
Authority and make representations effectively. However, post
COVID-19, while MahaRERA continues to function entirely
through virtual hearings, all the courts and tribunals across the
country, including in Maharashtra have adopted hybrid model.
He further submitted that dates for pronouncement of reserved
orders are not fixed or notified, and as such, the litigants are left
in a complete dilemma and uncertainty and have to repeatedly
follow up.
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
13 Mr. Naphade further submitted that IDs and contact
information of the Authority and its officials, although available
on its portal are either non-functional or unresponsive, and as
such, the communication with the Authority is effectively
unilateral. Emails often go unanswered, representations uploaded
on the filing portal are not acknowledged, and no provision exists
for in-person or virtual mentioning, thus frustrating the very
purpose of the Act.
14 We are also generally informed that once a matter is
listed and the complainant refuses conciliation, it is adjourned
with a direction to be listed `as per seniority', which, in some
cases, results in a delay of over a year before the matter is relisted,
thereby frustrating the very object of the Act. It is further
submitted that interim applications are not heard/decided; that
valid amendments are not taken on record, causing further delay;
and that parties remain unaware of when an order was actually
passed, as no time-stamp is affixed to the uploaded order.
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
15 Considering the aforesaid, it is requested that certain
guidelines be issued to the respondent No. 2 Authority to
facilitate the adjudication of grievances and execution of its
orders. He also prays that MahaRERA be directed to start Hybrid
hearing of cases.
16 Although Mr. Nilesh Gala has submitted his written
submissions on behalf of RPWA, we do not wish to go into the
same since Mr. Naphade has, in detail, addressed us on these
issues.
17 Mr. Adsure, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2-MahaRERA, has filed an affidavit-in-reply of
Mr. Prakash Kaluram Sabale, the Secretary of MahaRERA dated
29th April 2025. From the said affidavit, it appears that hearings
of on-line complaints filed by aggrieved parties whether home
buyers, promoters, or real estate agents, were held physically pre-
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
pandemic and transitioned to virtual mode during COVID-19 and
continues to hear the complaints virtually, even post COVID-19.
As per the affidavit, the IT complaint module of MahaRERA
allows complainants to file applications requesting for urgent
hearings of complaints as well as for grant of interim reliefs and
as such, other applications as considered necessary. In the
affidavit, it is further stated that the Authority is trying its level
best to reduce pendency and has set out a chart of the number of
complaints filed and disposed of as on 27 th April 2025 and the
number of applications filed for non-compliance of orders passed
by the Authority i.e. the number of applications disposed of and
pending for final disposal. In para 14 of the affidavit, it is
further stated that the hearing of the complaints are on-line.
However, if the parties desire to have physical hearing, an
application for the same is submitted before the respective Bench,
the said request may be considered by the Bench.
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
18 We have heard Mr. Naphade, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Adsure,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2-
MahaRERA.
19 At the outset, we may note that it is not in dispute that
MahaRERA was previously conducting physical hearings, and that
virtual hearings were introduced as a necessity during the
pandemic. 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. In the light of the aforesaid and more particularly,
when parties were being heard physically, we do not understand the
resistance of MahaRERA to commence hybrid hearing since it is not
in dispute that the facilities to hear the parties physically and
virtually are in place.
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
20 The importance of hearing parties physically or
virtually as the case may be, is left to the parties and the importance
of giving the parties an opportunity to decide the same in today's
day and age, can hardly be understated.
21 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. Tribunals must not
only be accessible in form, but also in substance.
22 Administrative Tribunals were established by the 42 nd
Amendment in 1976, by introducing Article 323A. Access to justice
is an important component of any court, the object being that the
parties for whom the Courts/Tribunals exists, must be given an
opportunity of being heard. Tribunals were constituted with the
sole objective of delivering speedy, inexpensive and decentralized
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
adjudication of disputes in various matters. 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. Virtual-only hearings, when
coupled with the inability to communicate effectively or mention
urgent matters, result in systemic opacity and procedural delays.
23 The Apex Court in Sarvesh Mathur v. Registrar
General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana1, highlighted the
importance of hybrid hearings, noting that the denial of access to
either mode amounts to procedural injustice. The Apex Court made
it clear that access to virtual hearings alone is insufficient. Denial of
physical hearing, even when facilities exist, amounts to an
unreasonable fetter on litigants' rights. The decision emphasizes that
the ability to choose one's mode of hearing is integral to access to
1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1293
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
justice. In this backdrop, the Court issued binding directions
requiring all courts and tribunals to implement hybrid hearing
mechanisms and associated infrastructure, which read thus:-
(i) After a lapse of two weeks from the date of this order, no
High Court shall deny access to video conferencing
facilities or hearing through the hybrid mode to any
member of the Bar or litigant desirous of availing of such a
facility;
(ii) All State Governments shall provide necessary funds to the
High Courts to put into place the facilities requisite for
that purpose within the time frame indicated above;
(iii) The High Courts shall ensure that adequate internet
facilities, including Wi-Fi facilities, with sufficient
bandwidth are made available free of charge to all
advocates and litigants appearing before the High Courts
within the precincts of the High Court complex;
(iv) The links available for accessing video conferencing/hybrid
hearings shall be made available in the daily cause-list of
each court and there shall be no requirement of making
prior applications. No High Court shall impose an age
requirement or any other arbitrary criteria for availing of
virtual/hybrid hearings;
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
(v) All the High Courts shall put into place an SOP within a
period of four weeks for availing of access to hybrid/video
conference hearings. In order to effectuate this, Justice
Rajiv Shakdher, Hon'ble Judge of the High Court of Delhi
is requested to prepare a model SOP, in conjunction with
Mr Gaurav Agrawal and Mr K Parameshwar, based on the
SOP which has been prepared by the e-Committee. Once
the SOP is prepared, it shall be placed on the record of
these proceedings and be circulated in advance to all the
High Courts so that a uniform SOP is adopted across all
the High Courts for facilitating video conference/hybrid
hearings;
(vi) All the High Courts shall, on or before the next date of
listing, place on the record the following details:
(a) The number of video conferencing licences which
have been obtained by the High Court and the
nature of the hybrid infrastructure;
(b) A court-wise tabulation of the number of video
conference/hybrid hearings which have taken place
since 1 April 2023; and
(c) The steps which have been taken to ensure that
Wi-Fi/internet facilities are made available within
every High Court to members of the Bar and
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
litigants appearing in person in compliance with
the above directions.
(vii) The Union Ministry of Electronics & Information
Technology is directed to coordinate with the
Department of Justice to ensure that adequate
bandwidth and internet connectivity is provided to all
the Courts in the North-East and in Uttarakhand,
Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir so as to
facilitate access to online hearings;
(viii) All High Courts shall ensure that adequate training
facilities are made available to the members of the Bar
and Bench so as to enable all practicing advocates and
Judges of each High Court to be conversant with the
use of technology. Such training facilities shall be set up
by all the High Courts under intimation to this Court
within a period of two weeks from the date of this
order; and
(ix) The Union of India shall ensure that on or before 15
November 2023, all Tribunals are provided with
requisite infrastructure for hybrid hearings. All Tribunals
shall ensure the commencement of hybrid hearings no
later than 15 November 2023. The directions governing
the High Courts shall also apply to the Tribunals
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
functioning under all the Ministries of the Union
Government including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT,
AFT, NCDRC, NGT, SAT, CAT, DRATs and DRTs.
(emphasis supplied)
24 The object of these directions was to ensure that video-
conferencing/hybrid facilities were made available by Tribunals and
all High Courts. It was also noted in the said judgment, that
technology plays an essential role in securing access to courtrooms
and as a result, access to justice for citizens across the country; that
in the march of technology, Courts cannot remain technologically
averse; that placing fetters on hybrid hearings, like mandating an
age criteria, requiring prior application, and frequent denial of
access to virtual participants has the direct effect of discouraging
lawyers and litigants to use technology, which not only affects the
efficiency and access to Courts, but it also sends out the misguided
message that access to Courts can be restricted at the whim to those
who seek justice.
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
25 The ratio of the Sarvesh Mathur (supra) is applicable
conversely to the present case. MahaRERA is presently conducting
hearings only through video-conferencing, despite having the
infrastructure to allow for physical hearings and despite parties
expressing their preference to appear physically. Several concerns
could be addressed if a hybrid model, allowing both physical and
virtual participation, is adopted. For instance: (i) Parties would
have greater clarity regarding the sitting schedule of the Tribunal
Members; (ii) They would be informed about the status or
outcome of their praecipes, which currently go unanswered; (iii)
If an incorrect video link is received, the advocate or litigant may
lose the opportunity to attend or argue the matter, which could
adversely affect the case; (iv) Despite the existence of urgency,
parties may be denied a short date of hearing, solely due to
technical or procedural lapses.
26 Infact, having perused the Seniority Circular issued by
MahaRERA, we find that the Seniority Circular cannot be the sole
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
basis for determining urgency; there may be other reasons
warranting listing. Matters involving non-compliance, serious
prejudice, or impending irreparable harm may require immediate
attention, irrespective of their position in the seniority list. 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.
27 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. In the
absence of a well-defined system or application for conducting
online proceedings, such hearings risk becoming inefficient and
disorderly. The unavailability of a hybrid hearing mechanism may,
in turn, lead to slower disposal rates, increased case pendency, and
ultimately, defeat the very purpose of the Act, which is the
expeditious resolution of disputes. Additionally, the present mode
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
of communication with the Authorities is unilateral, offering little
to no opportunity for the parties to effectively present or clarify
their case.
28 Though in the affidavit, respondent No.2-MahaRERA
asserts that parties may request physical hearings, learned counsel
for the petitioners contends that in practice, not a single case has
been listed for physical hearing in recent couple of years.
29 Access to justice is not merely about providing virtual
access, but ensuring that parties also have the right to appear
physically. In the present case, it is not as though the Tribunal never
held physical hearings. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, physical
hearings were the norm. It was only during the pandemic that the
Tribunal transitioned to virtual hearings. However, even after the
pandemic, respondent No.2 has continued to hold hearings
exclusively via video-conferencing, resulting in several difficulties
for litigants and lawyers alike. This insistence on an exclusive
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
virtual model creates impediments to access to justice, the very
objective that justified the introduction of virtual hearings during
the pandemic. 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.
30 The object of MahaRERA is to regulate and promote
the real estate sector. It is established with a view to protect the
interests of consumers in the real estate sector through an efficient,
effective, timely and transparent system/mechanism. It aims at
providing an adjudication mechanism for speedy dispute redressal.
31 In view of the above discussion and considering the
continuing difficulties faced by litigants and counsel appearing
before MahaRERA, the following directions are issued:
(i) MahaRERA shall, within a period of four weeks from
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
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;
(ii) MahaRERA shall consider revisiting Circular No. 34A
dated 8th April 2025 and its Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs), particularly with respect to the mechanism for:
(a) Urgent listing of matters;
(b) Execution of non-compliance orders;
(c) Mentioning of cases (physically or virtually); and
(d) Pronouncement and publication of reserved orders;
(iii) 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;
(iv) 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;
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
(v) MahaRERA shall also upload its orders with a time-
stamp indicating the date and time of upload;
(vi) 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;
(vii) 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.
32 Before parting, we may reiterate that access to justice is
not a privilege but a constitutional right. Ensuring procedural
clarity, physical accessibility, and technological support are core
elements of that right. As John F. Kennedy aptly remarked:
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
"The time and the world do not stand still. Change is the
law of life. And those who look only to the past or
present are certain to miss the future."
33 It is only in this context that the Apex Court took note
of the shifting dynamics of the Indian Judicial System vis-a-vis the
status of hybrid mode of hearings, in the case of Sarvesh Mathur
(Supra). We hope and trust that MahaRERA keeps in mind the
changing dynamics. The judicial system must evolve with the times,
and so must its institutions.
34 Rule is made absolute. The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs.
35 List the petition for recording compliance on 4th
September 2025.
36 All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this
order.
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
WP-L-11502-2025-J.doc
37 After the judgment was pronounced, learned counsel for
the respondent No.2 sought a stay of this judgment. The request is
rejected.
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
