Karnataka High Court
Rai Estates vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 September, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 23.08.2025
Pronounced on : 19.09.2025 R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.3379 OF 2024 (GM - RES)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION No.656 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.2306 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.3101 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.3521 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.4155 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.4293 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.9494 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.10108 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.10282 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.10309 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.12544 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.13199 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.15449 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.15473 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.15658 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.15746 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.15996 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.16897 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.18662 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.20391 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.20705 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.20706 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.20829 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.24816 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.25630 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
2
WRIT PETITION No.27565 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.29044 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.29252 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.29375 OF 2023 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.2453 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.3206 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.3596 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.3941 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.4770 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.4775 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.5281 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.5797 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.5802 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.7291 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.7654 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.8583 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.11439 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.12202 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.12203 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.12332 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.13209 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.13851 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.14128 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.16477 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.18008 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.21871 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.24692 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.25216 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.25254 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.25323 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.26531 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.26568 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.26851 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.29253 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.29405 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.29631 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.29843 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.31238 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.31922 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
3
WRIT PETITION No.32672 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.32681 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.33637 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.33648 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.33673 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.33676 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.3367 OF 2025 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.3731 OF 2025 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.13851 OF 2025 (GM - RES),
WRIT PETITION No.15925 OF 2025 (GM - RES)
IN WRIT PETITION No.3379 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SHARADA ACHAR
W/O SRI PADMANABHA ACHAR
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 1-1,
CHITHRAPADI SALIKAMA POST,
ACHALADY
UDUPI - 576 225.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAGHAVA P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY (RERA)
HOUSING DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO.211, II FLOOR,
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
4
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
AUTHORITY
2ND FLOOR,
SILVER JUBLI BLOCK,
UNITY BUILDING,
CSI COMPOUND,
3RD FLOOR,
MISSION ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
CIRCULAR IN TOTO "IMPOSING DELAY FEE FOR DELAYED
SUBMISSIONS OF QUARTERLY UPDATE AND ANNUAL AUDIT
STATEMENT" DTD 03.09.2020, BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-
SECTION/83/2020-21 AS UNDER ANNEXURE-A, ISSUED BY THE R-
2 ON THE GROUNDS OF IT BEING ULTRA VIRES TO ACT; SET
ASIDE THE DEMAND NOTICE AS UNDER ANNEXURE-D, LEVIED BY
THE R-2 AGAINST THE PETITIONER; DIRECT THE R-2 TO PERMIT
THE PETITIONER TO FILE THE QUARTERLY UPDATES ON THE WEB
PORTAL, AS REGARDS TO THE PROJECT OF THE PETITIONER.
IN WRIT PETITION No.656 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
JCSV BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
NO.72, ASK MANSION,
SYNDICATE BANK LAYOUT
ARKERE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 076
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS
5
MR. K. JAGADISH AND SANTHOSH K.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BOJANNA K.J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHAN SOUDHA,
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE CHAIRMAN
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
SECOND FLOOR SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
3RD CROSS ROAD, CSI COMPOUND
MISSION ROAD, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 027
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1
SRI. I.S. DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DELAY FEE
CALCULATED BY R2-VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.2306 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S HORIZON CONSTRUCTIONS
NO 204, 2ND FLOOR
SWASTIK CENTRAL
NEELIGIN ROAD
HUBLI - 580 029
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS
SRI. AMRUT MEHARWADE
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DARSHAN R., ADVOCATE)
6
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
RROM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SIILVER JUBLIEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1
SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONERS PROJECT BEARING
REGISTRATION NO. PRM/KA/RERA/1259/479/PR/200117/003180
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D, DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE
PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AUTHORITY IN
RESPECT OF THE PROJECT OF THE PETITIONER BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.PRM/KA/RERA/1259/479/PR/200117/003180 AT
ANNX-D AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.3101 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S HORIZON CONSTRUCTIONS
NO.204, 2ND FLOOR, SWASTIK CENTRAL
NEELIGIN ROAD
HUBLI - 580 029,
7
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SHIR AMRUT MEHARWADE
PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 58(1) OF
INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1982.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DARSHAN R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY THE SECRETARY,
HOUSING DEPARTMENT,
ROOM NO.211,
2ND FLOOR,
VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK,
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND,
3RD CROSS,
MISSION ROAD,
BENGALURU-560027
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M. RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1
SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR DATED 03.09.2020 BEARING
NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE R-2
AUTHORITY VIDE ANNX-F AND ETC.
8
IN WRIT PETITION No.3521 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S OPERA STRUCTURES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.48, 17TH G CROSS,
J P NAGAR, 5TH PHASE,
BENGALURU
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
MR. KARTHIK K.V.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO 1/14, 2ND FLOOR,
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1
SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
9
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR
DATED 03.09.2020 BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-
SECTION/83/2020.21 UNDER ANNEXURE-D UNDER WHICH DELAY
FEE FOR DELAYED SUBMISSION OF QUARTERLY UPDATE AND
ANNUAL AUDIT STATEMENT IS IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONER.
IN WRIT PETITION No.4155 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. CLASSIC VENTURES LLP.,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO. 6787, 4TH FLOOR, 17TH MAIN ROAD
6TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS
SRI Y.C.SANDEEP REDDY
S/O RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAVEEN H. P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1/14
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI I.S. DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE)
10
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE
SECTION/83/2020-21, DATED 03.09.2020 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-B1 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IMPOSING PENALTY
FOR DELAY IN UPLOADING THE PETITIONERS PROJECT STATUS
REPORT/DETAILS ON THE WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENT BY
ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS ILLEGAL.
IN WRIT PETITION No.4293 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
RAJ BUILDER AND DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVIGN ITS OFFICE AT
NO.271/A, 8TH MAIN, 1ST FLOOR
VIDYAPEETHA, BSK 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 085
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
SRI RAJENDRA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAVEEN H. P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE)
11
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED CIRCULAR BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE
SECTION/83/2020-21, DATED 03.09.2020 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-D, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, IMPOSING PENALTY
FOR DELAY IN UPLOADING THE PETITIONERS PROJECT STATUS
REPORT/DETAILS ON THE WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENT.
IN WRIT PETITION No.9494 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. UNISHIRE PROMOTERS PVT., LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956
AND HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT
NO.36, UNISHIRE SQUARE
RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD
NEHRU NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 020.
PRESENTLY AT
NO.42, CASTLE STREET
ASHOK NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 025
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI PRATIK K.MEHTA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
ROOM NO. 213, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
12
2. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1-14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE
SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNX-D BY WHICH FEE IS LEVIED
ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.10108 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. AXIS CONCEPT S CAPSTONE PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTRED OFFICE AT
1ST FLOOR, MAINI SADAN
NO.38, 7TH CROSS, LAVELLE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. PRASANNA S. K.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
13
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTEMENT
ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBLIEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATER FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE NATURE
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT IN THE LIKE NATURE
QUASHING THE CIRCULAR DATED 3.9.2020 BEARING
NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNX-D BY
WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER.
IN WRIT PETITION No.10282 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. PRERNA CONSTRUCTIONS
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
14
NO.2607, 27TH MAIN, 1ST SECTOR
HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 102
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR. ASHISH KUMAR AGARWAL.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
SECRETARIAT, ROOM NO.213
II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD
03/09/2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SEC/83/2020-21 UNDER
ANNEXURE-C BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE
PETITIONER.
15
IN WRIT PETITION No.10309 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. AXIS CONCEPTS CAPSTONE PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
1ST FLOOR, MAINI SADAN, NO.38
7TH CROSS, LAVELLE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. PRASANNA S. K.,
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
SECRETARIAT, ROOM NO.213
II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSON ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
16
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATER FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD
03/09/2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SEC/83/2020-21 UNDER
ANNEXURE-D BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER
AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.12544 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR. SHARANBASAPPA B.IRADI
S/O MR. BANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.8-1305/129/2/20
HUMNABAD ROAD, REVANASIDDESHWARA
COLONY KAPNOOR, KALABURGI - 585 104.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETRAIAT
ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
2ND CROSS, MISSION ROAD
17
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING
NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-D BY
WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER,
SET ASIDE THE DELAY FEE UNDER ANNEXURE-C LEVIED BY THE R2
ON THE PETITIONER
IN WRIT PETITION No.13199 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. S AND S PROPERTIES
REG. NO. 195/2012-13
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O ASHOK REDDY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
NO.886, S.R.TOWNWER
4TH FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, 4TH BLOCK
H.B.R. LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 043.
REG. UNDER CO-OP SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NANJA REDDY P. N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
18
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
NO.211, AND 213, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, 3RD CROSS
MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
DEMAND NOTICE DTD 26/05/2023 IMPOSING THE PENALTY/FINE
OF RS. 6,50,000/- (RUPEES SIX LAKHS FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY)
QUARTERLY AND AMOUNTING TO RS. 39,00,000/- (RUPEES THIRTY
NINE LAKHS ONLY) FOR SIX QUARTERS (ANNEXURE-H) ISSUED BY
THE R-2 IN RESPECT OF THE EARLIER PROJECT BEARING RERA
REGISTRATION NO. PRM/KA/RERA/1250/303/PR/190131/002318
IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF
THE RERA ACT AND THE RULES MADE THEREUNDER AND IN
VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
IN WRIT PETITION No.15449 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S V.G.PAREKH AND COMPANY
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DULY REGISTERED UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
BLDEA'S HOSPITAL ROAD
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
19
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. MAHAVEERCHAND GHEVARCHAND PAREKH.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO. 213, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR
DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-
SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-D BY R2 WHICH DELAY
FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,
20
IN WRIT PETITION No.15473 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. V.G.PAREKH AND COMPANY
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DULY REGISTERED
UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
BLDEA'S HOSPITAL ROAD
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. MAHAVEERCHAND GHEVARCHAND PAREKH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO. 213, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
21
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR
DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-
SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-C BY R2 WHICH DELAY
FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.15658 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. HIREN WAHEN BUILDTECH
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DULY REGISTERED
UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
SY. NO.86/4, AND 86/6
PANATHUR MAIN ROAD
KADUBESANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 103
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. L.PRAKASH.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
SECRETARIAT, ROOM NO.213
II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
22
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
CIRCULAR DTD. 03.09.2020 BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-
SEC/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNX-E BY THE R-2 WHICH DELAY FEE IS
LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.15746 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
VMAKS BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.131, 1ST FLOOR, 6TH 'C' MAIN
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 011
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. MAHESH BABU R.,
S/O LATE G.RAMASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAVEEN H. P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
23
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATER FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO.
RERA/FINANCE SECTION/83/2020-21 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B
ISSUED BY THE R2 LEVYING DELAY FEE ON THE PETITIONER BY
ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS ILLEGAL AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.15996 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. ONENESS BUILDERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REGISTERED UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
SAI SAMARTH APARTMENTS
8TH CROSS, HINDWADI
BELAGAVI - 590 006
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. MADAN BABURAO BAMANE.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
24
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL EXTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATER FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DT.
03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE/SECTION/83/2020-21 BY
R2, UNDER ANNX-D BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE
PETITIONER AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.16897 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. PAIS DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
D.NO. 3-W-1-27/2, GROUND FLOOR
MEDONNA MANSION, BEJAI CHURCH
25
CROSS ROAD, BEJAI
MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. ALDEN PAIS
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO. 213, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO. 1/14, 2nd FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATER FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DT.
03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21
UNDER ANNX-E BY R2 WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE
PETITIONER AND ETC.,
26
IN WRIT PETITION No.18662 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. BRICKS AND MILESTONES
PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER
INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
NO. 1140, 17TH CROSS,
SECTOR 7, HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 102
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
KIRAN V.,
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
HOUSING DEPARTMENT,
ROOM NO. 211, 2ND FLOOR,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK,
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND,
3RD CROSS, MISSON ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
27
CIRCULAR BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21
DATED 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.20391 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
UNIVERSAL DEVELOPERS
PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER
INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
AT NO.G1, H.A.ARCADE, 872
17TH 'E' MAIN, 6TH BLOCK
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/PARTNER
K.S.RAGHAVENDRA NAIK
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
28
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE AND
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FIANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21
DATED 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.20705 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. CLASSIC VENTURES LLP.,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.6787, 4TH FLOOR, 17TH MAIN ROAD
6TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI Y.C.SANDEEP REDDY
S/O RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAVEEN H. P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
HAVING OFFICE AT
29
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING
NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE R2
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.20706 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. CLASSIC VENTURES LLP.,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.6787
4TH FLOOR, 17TH MAIN ROAD
6TH CROSS, 3RD BLOCK
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 034
REGISTERED UNDER RERA ACT
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI Y.C.SANDEEP REDDY
S/O RAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAVEEN H. P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
30
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA REAL
ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO.
RERA/FINANCE SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE R-2
PRODUCED AT ANNX-B BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
IN WRIT PETITION No.20829 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE
BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
SAHAKARA SANKEERNA, SAHAKARA BHAVANA
CHAMARAJA DOUBLE ROAD
MYSORE - 570 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
R.JOSEPH.
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
INDIAN SOCIETY CO-OPERATIVE ACT, 1950.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
31
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD
03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.24816 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. JRC PROJECTS
A PATNERSHIP FIRMS REGISTRED UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO. 313, RAINBOW RESIDENCY
JUNNASANDRA VILLAGE, NEAR WIPRO
SARJAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 035
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. B.C.MANOHAR REDDY.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
32
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO. 213, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO. 1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD
03.09.2020 BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21
UNDER ANNEXURE-D BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE
PETITIONER AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.25630 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. PRASIDDHI CLASSIC REALTY
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.370, 5TH MAIN, 12TH CROSS
33
DOLLARS COLONY (HIG), RMV II STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 094
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR. B.SRINIVAS
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMETN OF KARNATAKA
SECRETARIAT, ROOM NO. 213
II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR
DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE- SECTION/83/2020-
21 UNDER ANNX-E BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE
PETITIONER AND ETC.,
34
N WRIT PETITION No.27565 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. SAIRAM DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956
AND HAVING ITS ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICE AT
NO.7, 3RD FLOOR, S.V.ARCADE, 1ST MAIN
ATTIGUPE ROAD, MYSORE INCOME TAX LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 040
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/DIRECTOR
SRI S.DEEPAK
S/O MR. S.SHANKAR
R/AT NO.949, 1ST 'E' MAIN ROAD
2ND PHASE, GIRINAGAR
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 085.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
ROOM NO.213, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
35
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO.
RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY VIDE ANNX-A
AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.29044 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR. MANING TELI
S/O BASAVANTHAPPA TELI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT MAHANTESH NAGAR
MAIGUR ROAD, JHAMAKHANDI
BAGALKOT - 587 301.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESATE
36
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDNGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CORSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD
03.09.2020 BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21
UNDER ANNEXURE-C BY R2 WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE
PETITIONER AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.29252 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
COUNTRY CLUB HOSPITALITY
AND HOLIDAYS LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013
AT AMRUTHA CASTLE
5-9-16, SAIFABAD
OPPOSITE TO SECRETARIAT
HYDERABAD - 500 063
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. VASEEM ULLAH QURESHI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
37
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21
DATED 03/09/2020 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.29375 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S. OZONE URBANA INFRA
DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956
AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO. 3, LEVELLE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
DIRECTOR
38
SRI S.SAIPRASAD
S/O SATYAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
ROOM NO.213, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO. 1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO.
RERA/FINANCE-SECTION /83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
39
IN WRIT PETITION No.2453 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
RAI ESTATES
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN
NO.10, NEW SAYYAJI RAO ROAD
BAMBOO BAZAAR
MYSORE - 570 021
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
K.SUBRAMANYA RAI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.211
2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
40
CIRCULAR BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD
03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.3206 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. SREE AND SREE BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS
REGISTERED UNDER PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PARTNER
SRI P.SREEDHAR REDDY, OFFICE AT NO. 1135
AVANI ARCADE, 2ND FLOOR, 17TH CROSS
5TH MAIN, 7TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 102.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY (RERA)
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO. 211, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SECRETARY
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
41
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
CIRCULAR IN TOTO IMPOSING DELAY FEE FOR DELAYED
SUBMISSIONS OF QUARTERLY UPDATE AND ANNUAL AUDIT
STATEMENT DTD SEPTEMBER 03, 2020, BEARING
NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 AS UNDER ANNEXURE-A,
ISSUED BY THE R2 ON THE GROUNDS OF IT BEING ULTRA VIRES
TO ACT AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.3596 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. SINDHURI INFRA PROJECTS
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PARTNER
SRI MUNGAMURU ANILKUMAR REDDY
OFFICE AT FLAT NO.C1
ARRCON MANIPURA APARTMENTS
22ND CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA
C.V.RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 093.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY UNDER SECRETARY (RERA)
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO.211, II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SECRETARY
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
42
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
CIRCULAR IN TOTO IMPOSING DELAY FEE FOR DELAYED
SUBMISSIONS OF QUARTERLY UPDATE AND ANNUAL AUDIT
STATEMENT DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING RERA/FINANCE-
SEC/83/2020-21 AS UNDER ANNEXURE-A, IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONER CONCERNED ISSUED BY THE R-2 ON THE GROUNDS
OF IT BEING ULTRA VIRES TO ACT.
IN WRIT PETITION No.3941 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. PROFOUND DEVELOPERS
REGISTERED UNDER PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI S.VENKAT REDDY, OFFICE AT NO. 272
HARAGADDE VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAGHAVA P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY (RERA)
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
43
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO. 211, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
AUTHORITY, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
CIRCULAR IN TOTO IMPOSING DELAY FEE FOR DELAYED
SUBMISSIONS OF QUARTERLY UPDATE AND ANNUAL AUDIT
STATEMENT DTD SEPTEMBER 03, 2020, BEARING
NO.RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 AS UNDER ANNEXURE-A,
ISSUED BY THE R2 ON THE GROUNDS OF IT BEING ULTRA VIRES
TO ACT.
IN WRIT PETITION No.4770 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. V.G.PAREKH AND COMPANY
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM DULY REGISTERED
UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932,
HAVING IT'S REGISTERED OFFICE AT
BLDEA'S HOSPITAL ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR - 586 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY/PARTNER,
44
MR.MAHAVEERCHAND GHEVARCHAND PAREKH.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.POORNIMA H.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
SECRETARIAT,
ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR,
SILVER JUBLEE PARK BLOCK,
UNIT BUILDINGS, CST COMPOUND,
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R-1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
CIRCULAR DATED 3.9.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-
SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY THE R2;
SETTING ASIDE THE DELAY FEE LEVIED UPON THE PROJECT OF
THE PETITIONER BEARING REGISTRATION NO.
PRM/KA/RERA/1275/448/PR/180601/001844 AND REFUND THE
INITIAL DEPOSIT OF PROJECT COST IF ANY, IN ACCORDANCE
45
WITH LAW VIDE ANNEXURE-G; DIRECT THE R1 TO SET FORTH
CONDITIONS/PROCEDURE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF REGISTRATION
OF PROJECTS HALTED IN THE STAGE OF PRE-COMMENCEMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF PRE-BOOKINGS
DUE TO FORCE MAJEURE, UNDER KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
(REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT RULES), 2017; DIRECTING THE
R2 TO ACCEPT THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED
26.6.2023 AT ANNEXURE-E, WITHOUT PAYMENT OF ANY DELAY FEE
AS STIPULATED IN ANNEXURE-G.
IN WRIT PETITION No.4775 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MR. CHANDRASHEKHAR GURAPPA DONNUR
S/O LATE GURAPPA DONNUR
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT NEAR MALLIKARJUN TEMPLE
SHAHABAD ROAD, RAJAPURA
KALABURAGI - 585 105.
(AS DECEASED REP. BY HIS LEGAL HEIR)
MR. SHIVARAJ DONNUR,
S/O LATE MR. CHANDRASHEKHAR GURAPPA DONNUR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT NEAR MALLIKARJUN TEMPLE
SHAHABAD ROAD, RAJAPURA
KALABURAGI - 585 105.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
46
ROOM NO. 213, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-
SEC/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-E BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS
LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER BY THE R-2.
IN WRIT PETITION No.5281 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI NIDHI INFRASTRUCTURES
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF
INFRASTRUCTURE
HAVING ITS BUSINESS AT
1ST FLOOR CITY GATE BUILDING
KADRI MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA
KARNATAKA - 575 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR. KIRAN SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI BALRAM R.RAO, ADVOCATE)
47
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO.213, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY RERA
THE SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALLING FOR
THE RECORDS OF THE PETITIONERS CASE AND AFTER EXAMINING
THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY THEREOF BE PLEASED TO QUASH
AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON CIRCULAR DATED
03/09/2020 CIRCULAR NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21
(ANNEXURE-B) AS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.5797 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
CHENNAM RANGASWAMY
S/O RANGAIAG CHENNAM
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
H-108, SRIRAM SPURTHI APARTMENTS
48
B-BLOCK, AECS LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 037.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21
DTD. 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.5802 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. YASHMU PROJECTS
REGISTERED BY UNDER
49
SECTION 5 OF THE REAL ESTATE
NO.218, 'B' BLOCK
MAHAVEER MARVEL APARTMENT
KODI CHIKANNA HALLI
BENGALURU - 560 076
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
K.VIJAYAPRASAD REDDY
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ISMAIL MUNEEB MUSBA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-
SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE R2 AUTHORITY PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-A.
50
IN WRIT PETITION No.7291 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MRS. ESTHER CHANDY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
W/O MR. EAPEN CHANDY
R/AT NO S-2, ABIDE WITH ME
1/A, 11TH CROSS
KARIANNAPALYA, LINGARAJAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 084.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SABASTIAN M. A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
ROOM NO.213, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BOCK
UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING RERA/FINANCE-
51
SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA
REAL ESTATE AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.7654 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. BHARATH DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PARTNER
SRI SANDEEP S. P.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
OFFICE AT NO. 1028, 25TH MAIN
39TH CROSS, 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAGHAVA P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY (RERA)
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO.211, II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SECRETARY
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
52
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT BE PASSED AGAINST
THE R-2; A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
WRIT BE PASSED QUASHING CIRCULAR IN TOTO IMPOSING DELAY
FEE FOR DELAYED SUBMISSIONS OF QUARTERLY UPDATE AND
ANNUAL AUDIT STATEMENT DTD SEPTEMBER 03, 2020, BEARING
NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 AS UNDER ANNEXURE-A
ISSUED BY THE R-2 ON THE GROUNDS OF IT BEING ULTRA VIRES
TO ACT.
IN WRIT PETITION No.8583/2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. KHAIN PROPERTIES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
D.NO.13/331E, II FLOOR
DEVARAJ TOWERS, COURT ROAD
UDUPI - 576 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR. NILESH ROLAND DAVID
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
53
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD
3.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.11439 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MR. SHREENIVAS SRIRAMALU
S/O MR. SRIRAMALU K.,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
SOLE PROPRIETOR OF
COLISTAA INFRA TECH
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
82/3/A, RAMA KRISHNA MUTT ROAD
HALASURU, BENGALURU - 560 008.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
54
ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR
DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-
21 UNDER ANNX-D BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE
PETITIONER SETTING ASIDE THE DELAY FEE BEARING REG NO.
PRM/KA/RERA/1251/310/PR/180319/001665 UNDER ANNX-C
LEVIED BY THE R-2 ON THE PETITIONER.
IN WRIT PETITION No.12202 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. MANDAVI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS
A REGISTERED INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
HAVING ITS RREGISTERED OFFICE AT
3RD FLOOR, MANDAVI TRADE CENTRE
UDUPI - MANIPAL ROAD, KUNJIBETTU
UDUPI - 576 102
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR. GLEN DIAS
55
S/O MR. JERRY VINCENT DIAS
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENTOF HOUSING
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
ROOM NO. 213, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO. 1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO.
RERA/FINANCE- SECTION /83/20-21 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY VIDE
ANNEXURE-A.
56
IN WRIT PETITION No.12203 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. MANDAVI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS
A REGISTERED INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR
MANDAVI TRADE CENTRE
UDUPI MANIPAL ROAD, KUNJIBETTU
UDUPI - 576 102
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR. GLEN DIAS
S/O MR. JERRY VINCENT DIAS
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
ROOM NO. 213, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING
CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
57
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO.
RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.12332 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. CALIBER PROPERTIES
A PROPRIETORY CONCERN
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.3083, PARAMAHAMSA ROAD
2ND MAIN, YADAVAGIRI
MYSORE - 570 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI ANIL KUMAR C.,
S/O LATE CHOKELAL
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA
ROOM NO. 213, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
58
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
CIRCULAR DATED 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE -
SECTION / 83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA
REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.13209 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MR. HAJARATALI AHAMAD PEERJADE
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
KAZI NALA, HUKKERI ROAD
TALUK: HUKKERI
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI - 591 309.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ANKITA AJAY PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
59
ROOM NO. 213, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO. 1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SIVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR
DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO. SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER
ANNEXURE-C BY DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER.
IN WRIT PETITION No.13851 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. COMFORT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED
UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR. T.NARASIMHA MURTHY
S/O THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
HAVING OFFICE AT
NO.2, NORTH PARK ROAD
KUMARA PARK EAST
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
60
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR
DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO.ISSUED BY THE R2
RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-F BY
WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER.
IN WRIT PETITION No.14128 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
ORAVIA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI R.VIVEKANANDA
S/O LATE G.R.REVAIAH
61
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.69/1
GUDIGATTANAHALLI VILLAGE
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 125
INCORPORATION DATE 29.10.2020.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
CIRCULAR DTD. 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-
SECTION/83/2020-21 PASSED BY THE R-2 (ANNX-B) AND DEALY
FEES IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONER (ANNX-C) IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
62
IN WRIT PETITION No.16477 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MR. SUSHANT GUPTA
S/O MAHENDER KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT, 17/23
4TH FLOOR, CASA CAPITOL
WOOD STREET, ASHOK NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 025.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO. 213, II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO. 1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR
63
DATED 03.09.2020 BEARING NO.RERA/FINANCE-
SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-D BEARING
REGISTRATION NUMBER PRM/KA/RERA/1251/309/PR/
180605/001874 BY WHICH DELAY FEE IS LEVIED ON THE
PETITIONER.
IN WRIT PETITION No.18008 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SHETTY PATIL DEVELOPERS LLP.,
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
C-2/11, OXFORD COMFORTS
WANAWAD PUNE - 411 040
REP. BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. SHARATKUMAR BABURAO SHETTY.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ASMITA ABHAY DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO.123 II FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
64
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD.
03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 AT
ANNX-D AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND
CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE DELAY FEE LEVIED BY THE R-2 IN
THE WEBSITE AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO MAKE THE
REQUIRED UPDATES.
IN WRIT PETITION No.21871 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. MITRA STRUCTURES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI VISHWANATH T.,
S/O THIMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.24
3RD FLOOR, LAKSHMAMMA LAYOUT
80 FEET ROAD, J.P.NAGAR
8TH PHASE, 2ND BLOCK
BENGALURU - 560 076
FIRM REGISTERED ON 11-04-2014
NO.JNR/41/2014-15.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ASMITA ABHAY DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
65
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
CIRCULAR DTD. 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-
SECTION/83/2020-21 PASSED BY THE R-2 (ANNX-B) AND DEALY
FEES IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONER (ANNX-C).
IN WRIT PETITION No.24692 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. OCEANUS DWELLINGS PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT PN PLAZA, NO.1090/B
18TH CROSS, 3RD SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560102
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. P.K.CHACKO.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
66
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21
DTD. 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.25216 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. OCEANUS DWELLINGS PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT PN PLAZA
NO.1090/B, 18TH CROSS, 3RD SECTOR
HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 102
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. P.K.CHACKO
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
67
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21
DATED 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE
ANNEXURE A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.25254 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. OCEANUS DWELLINGS PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.1090/B, PN PLAZA
4TH FLOOR, 18TH CROSS ROAD
3RD SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 102
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
68
MR. P.K.CHACKO
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21
DTD. 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.25323 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. OCEANUS DWELLINGS PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY HAVING ITS
69
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
PN PLAZA NO.1090/B, 18TH CROSS ROAD
3RD SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 102
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. P.K.CHACKO
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-
SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A.
70
IN WRIT PETITION No.26531 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S DHIRAN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD
A PRIVATE LIMITED FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED
NO 138, 29TH MAIN ROAD, DOLLERS COLONY
BTM 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE, IGGALURU VILLAGE,
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR.SURESH B S
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COPANIES ACT, 2013
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE RELULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
71
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT,
DIRECTION TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO.
RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY
THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.26568 OF 2024 (GM - RES),
BETWEEN
M/S. LORVEN STRUCTURES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
NO.1073, 30TH MAIN, BSK 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 070.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR. K.KESHAVULU NAIDU
A COMPANY REGISTRATION UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
72
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD
03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.26851 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. AMIGO SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED
NO.152, 2ND CROSS, SHIRDI SRINAGAR
K.NARAYANAPURA ROAD
A.C.POST, BENGALURU - 560 045
M.HAMZA ALI
MANAGING DIRECTOR
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
73
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SEC/83/2020-
21 DTD 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXUR-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.29253 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
DAYAAR INFRA BUILD PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
RS NO.1393/A-P3, Z.A.AVENUE
NEAR A.M.SHAIKH HOSPITAL
GANGWADI, BELGAUM - 590 016
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. SUHIB ASIF ISUF ANKALGI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
INCORPORATED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE REGISTRATION OF COMPANY ACT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI UDAYA PRAKASH M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM. NO.213, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 01.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SLIVER JUBLIEE PARK BLOCK
UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND, 3RD CROSS
MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 027
74
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-
SECTION/83/2020-21 DATED 03/09/2020 ISSUED BY R-2 AT
ANNEXURE-E AND /OR SET ASIDE THE DELAY FEE LEVIED ON THE
PETITIONER.
IN WRIT PETITION No.29405 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
DAYAAR INFRA BUILD PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT RS NO.1393/A-P3
Z.A.AVENUE, NEAR A.M.SHAIKH HOSPITAL
GANGWADI, BELGAUM - 590 016
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR.SUHIB ASIF ISUF ANKALGI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI UDAYA PRAKASH M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM. NO.213, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 01.
75
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SLIVER JUBLIEE PARK BLOCK
UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANACE-SECTION/83/202-21
DATED 03/09/2020 ISSUED BY R-2 AT ANNEXURE-B AND /OR SET
ASIDE THE DELAY FEE LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER.
IN WRIT PETITION No.29631 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
PREETI DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO. 899/1, MCEHS LAYOUT, SRK NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIERCTOR
MR. M.RAMA RANGESHWAR REDDY.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
76
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO. 213, II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK,
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR
DATED 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-
SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-F BY WHICH DELAY FEE
IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.29843 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
PREETI DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 899/1
MCEHS LAYOUT, SRK NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. M.RAMA RANGESHWAR REDDY.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY KRISHNA V., ADVOCATE)
77
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO.213, II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR
DATED 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-
SECTION/83/2020-21 UNDER ANNEXURE-F BY WHICH DELAY FEE
IS LEVIED ON THE PETITIONER.
IN WRIT PETITION No.31238 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. MONARCH
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REGISTERED UNDER
THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.54
BRIGADE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
78
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI SALMAN DAWOOD
S/O MR. DAWOOD MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.18, EDEN HALL APARTMENTS
3RD MAIN JAYAMAHAL
BENGALURU - 560 046.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
ROOM NO.213, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DATED 03/09/2020 BEARING NO.
RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
79
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY VIDE ANNX-A
AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.31922 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
M/S. SRI CHOWDESHWARI PROJECTS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO. 9, 1ST FLOOR, "PRITHVI JUNCTION"
GOTTIGERE BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BBMP WARD NO. 194, BENGALURU - 560 083
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON
SRI R.CHARAN, S/O B.RAMESH BABU.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MALLAPPA J.SHIVAYOGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY HOUSING DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT
ROOM NO. 123, II FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE PARK BLOCK
UNIT BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
80
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR
DTD 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/ FINANCE - SECTION /83/20-
21 AT ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE DELAY
FEE LEVIED BY THE R2 IN THE WEBSITE AND PERMIT THE
PETITIONER TO MAKE THE REQUIRED UPDATED.
IN WRIT PETITION No.32672 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI T.NARASIMHULU
S/O THAMMINENI PEDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 1197
1ST FLOOR, 22ND CROSS
24TH MAIN, PARANGIPALYA
2ND SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 560 012.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
NO. 1/14, 2ND FLOOR
81
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
CIRCULAR DTD. 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-
SECTION/83/2020-21 PASSED BY THE R-2 (ANNX-B) AND DEALY
FEES IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONER (ANNX-C) IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT PETITION No.32681 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI T.NARASIMHULU
S/O THAMMINENI PEDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1197
1ST FLOOR, 22ND CROSS
24TH MAIN, PARANGIPALYA
2ND SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 560 012.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA
82
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
CIRCULAR DTD. 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-
SECTION/83/2020-21 PASSED BY THE R-2 (ANNX-B) AND DEALY
FEES IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONER (ANNX-C) IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT PETITION No.33637 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SBR HABITAT LLP.,
A COMPANY HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
24/5, SITUATED AT SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
(PROJECT: SBR PRAVANIKA)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR. V.VENUGOPAL.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
83
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO. 211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21
DTD. 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.33648 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SBR GROUP
A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
24/5 SITUATED AT SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK
(PROJECT NAME: SBR HORIZON)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR. V.VENUGOPAL
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
84
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO. 211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-
SECTION/83/2020-21 DTD 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE
ANNX-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.33673 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SBR HABITAT LLP.,
A COMPANY HAVING ITS
REGISTRED OFIFCE AT 24/5
SITUATED AT SEGEHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
PROJECT: SBR KEERTHI
85
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. V.VENUGOPAL.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILIDNG, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSISON ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21
DTD. 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.33676 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SBR HABITAT LLP.,
A COMPANY HAVING ITS
86
REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24/5
SITUATED AT SEEGEHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
(PROJECT NAME: SBR TEJAS)
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR. V.VENUGOPAL
THE REGISTERED UNDER THE REAL ESTATE
(REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 2016
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO. 211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21
DTD. 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A.
87
IN WRIT PETITION No.3367 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
IINSPIRA SPRINGDALE PRIVATE LIMITED
NO.255, 36TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN
4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR III BLOCK
BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU - 560 011
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. ARAVINDA M. S.,
(PROJECT NAME: MANAR PURE EARTH)
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO.211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2 . KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
88
CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21
DTD. 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.3731 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
ESTELLA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
443,16TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN
HSR LAYOUT, 6TH SECTOR
BENGALURU - 560 102
(PROJECT NAME ESTELLA MAPLE SQUARE BLOCK A)
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. SUDHAKAR AGANI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP LAHIRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO. 211, 2ND FLOOR
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
89
SRI GOWTHAMDEV C.ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CIRCULAR BEARING NO. RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21
DTD. 03.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.13851 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
M/S. UNISHIRE SKYSCAPES LLP.,
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM
AND HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT
NO.36, UNISHIRE SQUARE
RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD
NEHRU NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 020.
PRESENTLY AT
NO.42, CASTLE STREET
ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 025
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SRI PRATIK K.MEHTA
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA
ROOM NO.213, 2ND FLOOR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY
90
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
NO.1/14, 2ND FLOOR
SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDING, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD. 03.09.2020 BEARING NO.
RERA/FINANCE-SECTION/83/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY VIDE ANNX-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.15925 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
PARTH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
INCORPORATED ON 25/10/2007
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI SANJEET VIJAYKUMAR RAUT
S/O VIJAYKUMAR PANDURANG RAUT
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 246
RAJANI GANDHA GARDEN APARTMENTS
NO. 21, VITTAL MALYA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE)
91
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
NO. 1/14, 2ND FLOOR, SILVER JUBILEE BLOCK
UNITY BUILDINGS, CSI COMPOUND
3RD CROSS, MISSION ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI I.S.DEVAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
CIRCULAR DATED 03.09.2020 BEARING NO. RERA/ FINANCE-
SECTION /83/2020-21 PASSED BY THE R2 (ANNEXURE -D) AND
DEALY FEES IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE -E)
BEARING NO. PRM/KA/RERA/1251/309/PR-171019/000265.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.08.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
92
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
Conglomeration of writ petitions, though arising from distinct
projects and differing promoters, converge upon a common
grievance - the validity of a Circular dated 03-09-2020 issued by
the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Karnataka (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Authority' for short). This Circular, in
essence, mandates the levy of "delay fee" for belated
submission of quarterly updates and annual audit
statements, without distinction to the scale of the project,
the stage of development, or the peculiar circumstances
surrounding it.
For the sake of convenience, the factual backdrop of writ
petition Nos.4770 of 2024, 3379 of 2024 and 18662 of 2023 would
be noticed, for it mirrors in substance the circumstances present in
the other connected cases.
93
2. Sans details, facts germane are as follows: -
IN WRIT PETITION NO.4770 OF 2024
2.1 The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the
business of development, construction and sale of residential
buildings. The petitioner is planning to construct apartments under
the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana in the name and style of 'Shubh
Gruh' in Sy.No.147, Plot No.102+103+139+140, Paninagar Layout,
Indi Road Pass, near Royal Enfield Showroom, Bijapur-Vijayapura
District. In compliance with the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for
short) and Karnataka Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) the
petitioner applied for RERA registration on 07-04-2018. The
application comes to be approved on 01-06-2018 with the
petitioner being termed as a promoter and was allotted a RERA
registration number. The petitioner then applied for plan sanction
for construction of apartment aforementioned and announced the
project canvassing for pre-bookings from the general public. The
petitioner then tried to source pre-bookings in order to obtain
94
commencement certificate for the project and when the things were
then picking up, the nation was engulfed with COVID-19 due to
which, the construction activity came to a grinding halt. It is the
averment in the petition that the petitioner could not fetch even a
single pre-booking for the project.
2.2. A Circular comes to be issued by the Authority on
03-09-2020. The Circular imposes 'delay fee' retrospectively for
delayed submission of quarterly update and annual audit
statement. The Circular encompasses every builder, developer or
promoter to file quarterly update and annual audit statement in
terms of Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner did not receive any
pre-bookings for the apartment to be constructed and it has neither
taken advances against the flat nor commenced any construction on
the site. Commencement certificate is not obtained. It is the
averment in the petition that, notwithstanding the aforesaid
circumstance, late fee is imposed upon the petitioner.
2.3. The petitioner represents on 26-06-2023 seeking
withdrawal of RERA registration due to non-receipt of pre-bookings
95
and non-commencement of construction activity. The petitioner also
applies for cancellation of plan, as nothing commenced from the
date of sanction of the plan. The petitioner is said to have pursued
the requisition for withdrawal with the 2nd respondent only to be
known, that in terms of the afore-mentioned Circular, only if delay
fee ₹7,90,000 as on 06-01-2024 is paid, further steps would be
taken towards the request of the petitioner. It is in this way, delay
fee is imposed upon the petitioner. This is called in question in the
subject petition.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.3379 of 2024
3. The petitioner in the subject petition is an individual who
has developed a project "Amogh Anagha Nivasayati" and is involved
in the development and promotion of real estate projects in the
State more particularly in Bangalore Urban and Rural areas. The
Act, as observed hereinabove, comes into effect on 25-03-2016 and
the Rules on 10-07-2017. The Circular imposing delay fee for
delayed submission of quarterly update and annual audit statement
comes in place. On 22-02-2022 the Bangalore International Airport
Area Planning Authority issues a layout approval plan in favour of
96
the petitioner. Therefore, the project could commence only after
approval of plan by the Planning Authority. But, on the ground that
quarterly updates and annual statement are not filed, delay fee of
₹7,90,000/- is imposed against the petitioner as well. It is,
therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the present petition.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.18662 of 2023
4. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in
development and construction activities. A housing project under
the name and style of "New Dawn" was taken up from the hands of
the Authority and sanction was obtained on 4-01-2018 from the
Planning Authority. The petitioner did not update the quarterly
reports on the website within 15 days from the end of the quarter.
Therefore, delay fee is imposed in terms of the Circular, which
would be ₹10,000/- up to one month and beyond one month a
delay fee of ₹20,000/- per month, irrespective of the project and
irrespective of the developer. The delay fee, in the case at hand, is
now imposed at ₹26,80,000/- not from the date on which the
Circular comes into force but retrospectively i.e., from 4th quarter of
2018-19 for each quarter, until the 3rd quarter of 2019-20. It is
97
this that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject
petition.
5. In all the connected cases the issue is the same. The
projects are different, the partnership firms or individuals are
different and amount of delay fee imposed is also different. But, the
submissions on legality of imposition of delay fee, pursuant to the
Circular is a common stream that runs through all these cases.
6. Heard Smt Poornima H.S. in W.P.No.4770 of 2024;
Sri Raghava P in W.P.No.3379 of 2024 and Sri Sandeep Lahiri in
W.P.No.18662 of 2023, learned counsels for petitioners and all
other learned counsels appearing for petitioners in connected cases,
Sri M Rajakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Gowthamdev C Ullal, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
SUBMISSIONS:
7. Learned counsel Smt Poornima H. S. appearing for
the petitioner in W.P.4770 of 2024 spearheads the charge.
She contends that the impugned Circular is wholly without authority
98
of law. The Act undoubtedly imposes obligations on promoters, it
neither envisages nor empowers the authority to levy delay fees of
the kind that is now demanded. She would contend that the
Circular is violative of Rules 4 and 7 of the Rules, which depict non-
commencement of construction and force majeure. It is her
submission that delay due to COVID-19 pandemic and consequent
non-take of, of the projects were due to force majeure. The Circular
applies to promoters who wish to extend registration by seeking
extension of registration and not the promoters who want to
withdraw registration itself on force majeure, particularly the
petitioner. Rule 7 of the Rules imposes a condition that the
Authority should inform the promoter about the extension or
rejection and further grants power to the Authority to rectify the
defects, if they fail to comply with the conditions thereunder.
Section 6 of the Act mandates that no application for extension
shall be rejected, unless an opportunity of hearing is granted to the
applicant, especially in circumstances of force majeure. The Act
does not authorize collection of heavy amounts by way of Circular.
It is an unjust enrichment by the Authority, in the absence of basis
of calculation of delay fee inconsistent with the Act. The learned
99
counsel projects a unique circumstance in the petition. According
to the learned counsel, the Act deals with registration and extension
of the project. There is no provision to withdraw the registration.
She would contend that Section 6 itself recognizes the registration
granted under Section 5 could be extended on an application made
by the Promoter due to force majeure in such form and on payment
of such fee as may be prescribed. Rule 7 speaks of modalities of
extension of registration. Delay fee need not be imposed where the
extension of a project is due to force majeure. She would submit
that her application seeking withdrawal of registration should be
considered failing which, the petitioner would be simply saddled
with delay fee, which is also contrary to law. Notwithstanding the
petitioners being victims of real estate crash and their inability to
cope up with losses.
8. The learned counsel Sri Sandeep Lahiri appearing for the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.18662 of 2023 and Sri Raghava P.,
learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3379 of 2024
in unison would vehemently contend that parameters or mode in
which the Circular penalizes is not in consistent with the Act. It is
100
his submission that Section 61 of the Act imposes penalty for
contravention of other provisions of the Act. Therefore, the Act
indicates that the promoter shall be liable to any penalty which may
extend up to 5% of the estimated costs of the real estate project.
Therefore, collection of delay fee by way of a Circular is nowhere
found under the Act. The Circular cannot lead to imposition of fee,
not found under the Act. It is his submission that imposition of fee
is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as same
treatment of fee collection is imposed on promoters despite the
project being of 10 apartments or 1000 apartments, this is
arbitrary, ill-logical and unreasonable. Section 37 of the Act does
not empower the Authority to issue a Circular imposing collection of
delay fee. The Circular is indicative of the fact that delay fee would
have to be taken commencing from the date of impugned Circular,
but collection of fee is now being imposed retrospectively from the
third quarter of 2018-19. He would submit on behalf of all the
petitioners that, delay fee that is imposed by way of Circular is
contrary to the Act.
101
THE RERA:
9. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Gowthamdev C. Ullal
appearing for the Authority in all these cases and learned Additional
Government Advocate Sri M. Rajakumar appearing for the State
would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the Act
imposes mandatory obligations on the promoters to provide
quarterly updates on the K-RERA portal regarding the details of the
projects and these promoters and developers or individuals who are
in the business of development when they fail to submit quarterly
updates on K-RERA website, the fee is collected. Therefore, it is a
caution for the developers to adhere to the timeline. The
petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands, as
they have to comply with the directions of the Authority issued from
time to time. Since they have not complied, they are liable for
action under Sections 61 and 63 of the Act or consequences that
flow from the mandate of the statute. The Circular is prospective
and not retrospective at all, as is contended by the petitioners. It is
in compliance with Section 37 of the Act and therefore, the
submissions to the contrary should not be entertained. They would
seek dismissal of the petitions.
102
10. With these rival submissions ringing in the ears of
the Court, one side decrying the circular as a usurpation of
legislative power, the other defending it as a necessary
instrument of regulation, the matter now requires
determination. In furtherance whereof, the issue that falls for
consideration is:
"Whether the Circular indeed traces its authority to the
parent statute or whether it strays into the forbidden field of
ultra-vires action?"
CONSIDERATION:
11. To resolve the kernel in the conundrum, it becomes
imperative first to turn to the statute itself. The Act in
unmistakable terms delineates, the powers conferred upon the
Authority and the obligations cast upon the promoter or any person
registered under the Act. It becomes germane to notice those
provisions of the Act and the Rules.
103
THE ACT:
11.1. First let me notice the Act and consider the sections
that are relevant. Sections 4, 5, 6, 11, 34, 37, 61, 63 of the Act
read as follows:
"4. Application for registration of real estate
projects.--(1) Every promoter shall make an application to the
Authority for registration of the real estate project in such form,
manner, within such time and accompanied by such fee as may
be 3[prescribed].
(2) The promoter shall enclose the following documents
along with the application referred to in sub-section (1),
namely--
(a) a brief details of his enterprise including its
name, registered address, type of enterprise
(proprietorship, societies, partnership,
companies, competent authority), and the
particulars of registration, and the names and
photographs of the promoter;
(b) a brief detail of the projects launched by him, in
the past five years, whether already completed
or being developed, as the case may be,
including the current status of the said projects,
any delay in its completion, details of cases
pending, details of type of land and payments
pending;
(c) an authenticated copy of the approvals and
commencement certificate from the competent
authority obtained in accordance with the laws
as may be applicable for the real estate project
mentioned in the application, and where the
project is proposed to be developed in phases,
an authenticated copy of the approvals and
104
commencement certificate from the competent
authority for each of such phases;
(d) the sanctioned plan, layout plan and
specifications of the proposed project or the
phase thereof, and the whole project as
sanctioned by the competent authority;
(e) the plan of development works to be executed
in the proposed project and the proposed
facilities to be provided thereof including fire
fighting facilities, drinking water facilities,
emergency evacuation services, use of
renewable energy;
(f) the location details of the project, with clear
demarcation of land dedicated for the project
along with its boundaries including the latitude
and longitude of the end points of the project;
(g) pro forma of the allotment letter, agreement for
sale, and the conveyance deed proposed to be
signed with the allottees;
(h) the number, type and the carpet area of
apartments for sale in the project along with the
area of the exclusive balcony or verandah areas
and the exclusive open terrace areas
appurtenant with the apartment, if any;
(i) the number and area of garage for sale in the
project;
(j) the names and addresses of his real estate
agents, if any, for the proposed project;
(k) the names and addresses of the contractors,
architect, structural engineer, if any and other
persons concerned with the development of the
proposed project;
105
(l) a declaration, supported by an affidavit, which
shall be signed by the promoter or any person
authorised by the promoter, stating,--
(A) that he has a legal title to the land on which the
development is proposed along with legally valid
documents with authentication of such title, if
such land is owned by another person;
(B) that the land is free from all encumbrances, or
as the case may be details of the encumbrances
on such land including any rights, title, interest
or name of any party in or over such land along
with details;
(C) the time period within which he undertakes to
complete the project or phase thereof, as the
case may be;
(D) that seventy per cent of the amounts realised
for the real estate project from the allottees,
from time to time, shall be deposited in a
separate account to be maintained in a
scheduled bank to cover the cost of construction
and the land cost and shall be used only for that
purpose:
Provided that the promoter shall withdraw the
amounts from the separate account, to cover
the cost of the project, in proportion to the
percentage of completion of the project:
Provided further that the amounts from the
separate account shall be withdrawn by the
promoter after it is certified by an engineer, an
architect and a chartered accountant in practice
that the withdrawal is in proportion to the
percentage of completion of the project:
Provided also that the promoter shall get his
accounts audited within six months after the
end of every financial year by a chartered
106
accountant in practice, and shall produce a
statement of accounts duly certified and signed
by such chartered accountant and it shall be
verified during the audit that the amounts
collected for a particular project have been
utilised for that project and the withdrawal has
been in compliance with the proportion to the
percentage of completion of the project.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this clause, the
term "scheduled bank" means a bank included
in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of
India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934);
(E) that he shall take all the pending approvals on
time, from the competent authorities;
(F) that he has furnished such other documents as
may be prescribed by the rules or regulations
made under this Act; and
(m) such other information and documents as may be
prescribed.
(3) The Authority shall operationalise a web based online
system for submitting applications for registration of projects
within a period of one year from the date of its establishment.
5. Grant of registration.--(1) On receipt of the
application under sub-section (1) of Section 4, the
Authority shall within a period of thirty days--
(a) grant registration subject to the provisions of this
Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder,
and provide a registration number, including a
Login Id and password to the applicant for
accessing the website of the Authority and to create
his web page and to fill therein the details of the
proposed project; or
107
(b) reject the application for reasons to be recorded in
writing, if such application does not conform to the
provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made
thereunder:
Provided that no application shall be rejected unless the
applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard in the
matter.
(2) If the Authority fails to grant the registration or
reject the application, as the case may be, as provided
under sub-section (1), the project shall be deemed to
have been registered, and the Authority shall within a
period of seven days of the expiry of the said period of
thirty days specified under sub-section (1), provide a
registration number and a Login Id and password to the
promoter for accessing the website of the Authority and
to create his web page and to fill therein the details of
the proposed project.
(3) The registration granted under this section shall be
valid for a period declared by the promoter under sub-clause (C)
of clause (l) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 for completion of the
project or phase thereof, as the case may be.
6. Extension of registration.--The registration
granted under Section 5 may be extended by the
Authority on an application made by the promoter, due to
force majeure, in such form and on payment of such fee
as may be prescribed:
Provided that the Authority may in reasonable
circumstances, without default on the part of the
promoter, based on the facts of each case, and for
reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the registration
granted to a project for such time as it considers
necessary, which shall, in aggregate, not exceed a period
of one year:
Provided further that no application for extension of
registration shall be rejected unless the applicant has been
given an opportunity of being heard in the matter.
108
Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, the
expression "force majeure" shall mean a case of war, flood,
drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused
by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate
project.
... ... ...
11. Function and duties of promoter.--(1) The
promoter shall, upon receiving his Login Id and password
under clause (a) of sub-section (1) or under sub-section
(2) of Section 5, as the case may be, create his web page
on the website of the Authority and enter all details of
the proposed project as provided under sub-section (2) of
Section 4, in all the fields as provided, for public viewing,
including--
(a) details of the registration granted by the Authority;
(b) quarterly up-to-date the list of number and types of
apartments or plots, as the case may be, booked;
(c) quarterly up-to-date the list of number of garages
booked;
(d) quarterly up-to-date the list of approvals taken and
the approvals which are pending subsequent to
commencement certificate;
(e) quarterly up-to-date status of the project; and
(f) such other information and documents as may be
specified by the regulations made by the Authority.
(2) The advertisement or prospectus issued or published
by the promoter shall mention prominently the website address
of the Authority, wherein all details of the registered project
have been entered and include the registration number obtained
from the Authority and such other matters incidental thereto.
(3) The promoter at the time of the booking and issue of
allotment letter shall be responsible to make available to the
allottee, the following information, namely:--
109
(a) sanctioned plans, layout plans, along with specifications,
approved by the competent authority, by display at the
site or such other place as may be specified by the
regulations made by the Authority;
(b) the stagewise time schedule of completion of the project,
including the provisions for civic infrastructure like water,
sanitation and electricity.
(4) The promoter shall--
(a) be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and
functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and
regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per the
agreement for sale, or to the association of allottees, as
the case may be, till the conveyance of all the
apartments, plots or buildings, as the case may be, to the
allottees, or the common areas to the association of
allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be:
Provided that the responsibility of the promoter,
with respect to the structural defect or any other defect
for such period as is referred to in sub-section (3) of
Section 14, shall continue even after the conveyance
deed of all the apartments, plots or buildings, as the case
may be, to the allottees are executed.
(b) be responsible to obtain the completion certificate or the
occupancy certificate, or both, as applicable, from the
relevant competent authority as per local laws or other
laws for the time being in force and to make it available
to the allottees individually or to the association of
allottees, as the case may be;
(c) be responsible to obtain the lease certificate, where the
real estate project is developed on a leasehold land,
specifying the period of lease, and certifying that all dues
and charges in regard to the leasehold land has been
paid, and to make the lease certificate available to the
association of allottees;
(d) be responsible for providing and maintaining the essential
services, on reasonable charges, till the taking over of the
110
maintenance of the project by the association of the
allottees;
(e) enable the formation of an association or society or
cooperative society, as the case may be, of the allottees,
or a federation of the same, under the laws applicable:
Provided that in the absence of local laws, the
association of allottees, by whatever name called, shall be
formed within a period of three months of the majority of
allottees having booked their plot or apartment or
building, as the case may be, in the project;
(f) execute a registered conveyance deed of the apartment,
plot or building, as the case may be, in favour of the
allottee along with the undivided proportionate title in the
common areas to the association of allottees or
competent authority, as the case may be, as provided
under Section 17 of this Act;
(g) pay all outgoings until he transfers the physical
possession of the real estate project to the allottee or the
associations of allottees, as the case may be, which he
has collected from the allottees, for the payment of
outgoings (including land cost, ground rent, municipal or
other local taxes, charges for water or electricity,
maintenance charges, including mortgage loan and
interest on mortgages or other encumbrances and such
other liabilities payable to competent authorities, banks
and financial institutions, which are related to the
project):
Provided that where any promoter fails to pay all or
any of the outgoings collected by him from the allottees
or any liability, mortgage loan and interest thereon before
transferring the real estate project to such allottees, or
the association of the allottees, as the case may be, the
promoter shall continue to be liable, even after the
transfer of the property, to pay such outgoings and penal
charges, if any, to the authority or person to whom they
are payable and be liable for the cost of any legal
proceedings which may be taken therefor by such
authority or person;
111
(h) after he executes an agreement for sale for any
apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, not
mortgage or create a charge on such apartment, plot or
building, as the case may be, and if any such mortgage or
charge is made or created then notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force, it
shall not affect the right and interest of the allottee who
has taken or agreed to take such apartment, plot or
building, as the case may be.
(5) The promoter may cancel the allotment only in terms
of the agreement for sale:
Provided that the allottee may approach the Authority for
relief, if he is aggrieved by such cancellation and such
cancellation is not in accordance with the terms of the
agreement for sale, unilateral and without any sufficient cause.
(6) The promoter shall prepare and maintain all such
other details as may be specified, from time to time, by
regulations made by the Authority.
... ... ...
34. Functions of Authority.--The functions of the
Authority shall include--
(a) to register and regulate real estate projects and real
estate agents registered under this Act;
(b) to publish and maintain a website of records, for public
viewing, of all real estate projects for which registration
has been given, with such details as may be prescribed,
including information provided in the application for which
registration has been granted;
(c) to maintain a database, on its website, for public viewing,
and enter the names and photographs of promoters as
defaulters including the project details, registration for
which has been revoked or have been penalised under
this Act, with reasons therefor, for access to the general
public;
112
(d) to maintain a database, on its website, for public viewing,
and enter the names and photographs of real estate
agents who have applied and registered under this Act,
with such details as may be prescribed, including those
whose registration has been rejected or revoked;
(e) to fix through regulations for each areas under its
jurisdiction the standard fees to be levied on the allottees
or the promoter or the real estate agent, as the case may
be;
(f) to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon
the promoters, the allottees and the real estate
agents under this Act and the rules and regulations
made thereunder;
(g) to ensure compliance of its regulations or orders or
directions made in exercise of its powers under this Act;
(h) to perform such other functions as may be entrusted to
the Authority by the appropriate Government as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
... ... ...
37. Powers of Authority to issue directions.--The
authority may, for the purpose of discharging its
functions under the provisions of this Act or rules or
regulations made thereunder, issue such directions from
time to time, to the promoters or allottees or real estate
agents, as the case may be, as it may consider necessary
and such directions shall be binding on all concerned.
... ... ...
61. Penalty for contravention of other provisions of
this Act.--If any promoter contravenes any other
provisions of this Act, other than that provided under
Section 3 or Section 4, or the rules or regulations made
thereunder, he shall be liable to a penalty which may
extend up to five per cent of the estimated cost of the
real estate project as determined by the Authority.
... ... ...
63. Penalty for failure to comply with orders of
Authority by promoter.--If any promoter, who fails to
113
comply with, or contravenes any of the orders or
directions of the Authority, he shall be liable to a penalty
for everyday during which such default continues, which
may cumulatively extend up to five per cent, of the
estimated cost of the real estate project as determined by
the Authority."
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 4 of the Act prescribes the requirements for registration of
the projects, including disclosure of sanction plans, layouts and
schedule of completion. Section 5 of the Act deals with grant of
registration. The registration is granted in all these cases. Section 6
deals with extension of registration. A registration granted under
Section 5 may be extended by the Authority under Section 6 on an
application of the promoter, in such form and on payment of such
fee, as may be prescribed. The extension indicates that force
majeure would mean war, flood, drought, fire, or any other
calamity caused by nature affecting regular development of a real
estate project. Section 11 obliges every promoter to furnish
quarterly updates on project status together with annual reports.
Sections 34 and 35 empower the Authority to call for information
and to ensure compliance with the obligation. There are several
functions of the Authority empowering it towards completion of
114
projects. Section 37 deals with powers of the Authority to issue
directions. The Authority for the purpose of discharging its functions
under the Act or the Rules is empowered to issue directions from
time to time to the promoters, allottees and real estate agents as
the case would be. Section 61 deals with penalty for contravention
of other provisions of the Act. If any promoter would contravene
any other provisions of the Act other than what is provided under
Sections 3 or 4, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to
5% of the estimated cost of real estate project as determined by
the Authority. Section 63 deals with penalty for failure to comply
with orders of the Authority by the promoter. The entire fulcrum
of the lis revolves round the afore-quoted provisions,
particularly of Sections 37, 61 and 63 of the Act.
THE RULES:
11.2. In exercise of powers conferred under the Act, the Rules
are promulgated. Certain Rule, that are germane, are necessary to
be noticed. Rule 7 which deals with extension of registration of the
project and reads as follows:
115
"7. Extension of registration of project.-- (1) The
registration granted under the Act, may be extended by the
Authority, on an application made by the promoter in Form 'T',
in triplicate, until the application procedure is made web based,
within three months prior to the expiry of the registration
granted.
(2) The application for extension of registration shall be
accompanied with a demand draft or a bankers cheque drawn
on any scheduled bank or Co-operative Bank through online
payment mode, as the case may be, for an amount equivalent
to half the registration fees as prescribed under sub-rule (3) of
Rule 3 along with an explanatory note setting out the reasons
for delay in the completion of the project and the need for
extension of registration for the project, along with documents
supporting such reasons:
Provided that where the promoter applies for
extension of registration of the project due to force
majeure he shall not be liable to pay any fee.
(3) The extension of registration of the project shall not
be beyond the period specified under concerned State Acts for
completion of the project or phase thereof, as the case may be.
(4) In case of extension of registration, the Authority
shall inform the promoter about such extension in Form 'F' and
in case of rejection of the application for extension of
registration the Authority shall inform the promoter about such
rejection in Form 'D':
Provided that the Authority may grant an opportunity to
the promoter to rectify the defects in the application within such
time period as may be specified by it."
(Emphasis supplied)
What is striking, however, is that while the Act lays down the duties
of promoters with precision, it nowhere contemplates the imposition
116
of "delay fee" in the event of non-compliance. The only
consequence spelt out in the Act are those of penalty or interest in
terms of the provisions quoted hereinabove. The Rules follow suit.
It nowhere speaks of imposition of any delay fee.
12. Notwithstanding the same, in the teeth of the absence of
power, the Authority notifies a Circular. Therefore, it becomes
necessary to notice the Circular, The Circular reads as follows:
"No.RERA/Finance-Section/83/2020-21 Date: 03.09.2020
CIRCULAR
Sub: Imposing delay fee for delayed submission of
quarterly update and Annual Audit Statement.
*****
Whereas, Section 11 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 and Rule 15(D) of Karnataka
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
mandates the promoter to perform certain functions as
required under the Act. One of the mandatory
requirements is to Quarterly Updates on the RERA
Authority website.
Promoters of Registered projects shall be upload the necessary
details as per under Section 11(1), Rule 15(D) and as
prescribed, including reporting compliance as required Section
4(2)(1)(D) on Authority website.
Accordingly, Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority has
enabled the facility on its website for online filing of Quarterly
Updates and Annual Audit for the registered projects.
Under Section 37 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 the Karnataka Real Estate
117
Regulatory Authority is vested with the power to issue
directions for the purpose of discharging its functions
under the provisions of this Act or Rules or Regulations
made thereunder, issue such directions from time to
time, to the Promoters or Allottees or Real Estate Agents,
as the case may be, as it may consider necessary and
such directions shall be binding on all concerned.
The Authority has been that, many of the Promoters are not
filing the Post Registration, Quarterly updates and Annual Audit
on the website of the Authority, within the prescribed time in
accordance with Rules 15(D) and Section 4(2)(1)(D).
Hence, it is decided by the Authority to levy the delay filing fees
for non-compliance of provisions of the Act/Rules. Hence, this
circular.
The delay fees payable by the promoters of the project for the
Quarterly Updates on the website of the Authority shall be as
follows:
Sl. Due date as per Delay Delay Fees
No. K-RERA Rule per project
Upto 1 month ₹10,000
15th days from from the due
1 the end of the date
Quarter. Beyond 1 ₹20,000 per
month month of
delay
The delay fees shall be effective commencing from the date of
this circular and the promoters shall remit the fees through
RERA E-Payment at the time of filing of the Quarterly Updates
as enabled by the Authority on the website.
(Approved by the Authority)
Sd/-
Secretary,
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority."
(Emphasis added)
118
The Circular refers to Section 11 of the Act and Rule 15 of the
Rules which mandate the promoter to perform certain functions as
required under the Act. It further refers to Section 37 vesting
certain powers to issue certain directions towards discharge of
functions by the promoters. The Authority has observed that
promoters are not filing post registration quarterly updates and
annual audit on the website within time. Therefore, it has decided
to impose delay fee. None of the provisions quoted therein
empower the Authority to impose a fee. A perusal at the Circular
does not indicate any source of power for imposition of a fee, and
does not have the method of calculation, of fee as well. Therefore,
the Circular apart from it being issued at its whim, does not trace
its power to the Act.
13. It is trite that imposition of tax, fee or any other impost
upon any person, cannot be by way of Circular. It is therefore
manifest that the Act and the Rules have not clothed the Authority
with power to levy or recover fees beyond those expressly
authorised. In the absence of such express conferment, no
Circular, however well intentioned, can conjure into
119
existence a financial liability against the promoters. This
principle is neither novel nor chartered. Jurisprudence is
replete with the Apex Court and other High Courts
considering that no tax, fee or impost can be foisted upon a
citizen, except by clear authority of statute. The Courts have
struck down such actions that would seek to transgress this
settled boundary. I therefore, deem it appropriate to notice the
said position of law.
POSITION IN LAW:
14. Article 265 of the Constitution is the source of power for
the Union and the States to impose taxes in accordance with law.
Article 265 of the Constitution of India reads as follows:
"265. Taxes not to be imposed save by authority of
law.- No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of
law."
Therefore, an impost can be made only in accordance with or
and as authorized by law.
120
15. Tax or a fee has been a subject matter of interpretation
by the Apex Court in several judgments considering several facets
of such imposts. I deem it appropriate to notice a few:
(i) COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS,
v. SRI LAKSHMINDRA THIRTHA SWAMIAR OF
SRISHIRUR MUTT1:
".... .... ....
44. A neat definition of what "tax" means has been given
by Latham, C.J. of the High Court of Australia
in Matthews v. Chicory Marketing Board [60 CLR 263, 276]. "A
tax", according to the learned Chief Justice, "is a compulsory
exaction of money by public authority for public purposes
enforceable by law and is not payment for services rendered".
This definition brings out, in our opinion, the essential
characteristics of a tax as distinguished from other forms of
imposition which, in a general sense, are included within it. It is
said that the essence of taxation is compulsion, that is to say, it
is imposed under statutory power without the taxpayer's
consent and the payment is enforced by law [Vide Lower
Mainland Dairy v. Crystal Dairy Ltd. , [1933] A.C. 168]. The
second characteristic of tax is that it is an imposition made for
public purpose without reference to any special benefit to be
conferred on the payer of the tax. This is expressed by saying
that the levy of tax is for the purposes of general revenue,
which when collected forms part of the public revenues of the
State. As the object of a tax is not to confer any special benefit
upon any particular individual, there is, as it is said, no element
of quid pro quo between the taxpayer and the public authority
[See Findlay Shirras on Science of Public Finance, Vol. I, p.
203]. Another feature of the taxation is that as it is a part of the
1
1954 SCC OnLine SC 67
121
common burden, the quantum of imposition upon the taxpayer
depends generally upon his capacity to pay-
45. Coming now to fees, a "fee" is generally defined
to be a charge for a special service rendered to
individuals by some governmental agency. The amount of
fee levied is supposed to be based on the expenses
incurred by the Government in rendering the service,
though in many cases the costs are arbitrarily assessed.
Ordinarily, the fees are uniform and no account is taken
of the varying abilities of different recipients to pay [Vide
Lutz on Public Finance, p. 215]. These are undoubtedly
some of the general characteristics, but as there may be
various kinds of fees, it is not possible to formulate a
definition that would be applicable to all cases.
46. As regards the distinction between a tax and a
fee, it is argued in the first place on behalf of the
respondent that a fee is something voluntary which a
person has got to pay if he wants certain services from
the Government; but there is no obligation on his part to
seek such services and if he does not want the services,
he can avoid the obligation. The example given is of a
licence fee. If a man wants a licence that is entirely his
own choice and then only he has to pay the fees, but not
otherwise. We think that a careful examination will reveal
that the element of compulsion or coerciveness is present
in all kinds of imposition, though in different degrees and
that it is not totally absent in fees. This, therefore, cannot
be made the sole or even a material criterion for
distinguishing a tax from fees. It is difficult, we think, to
conceive of a tax except, it be something like a poll tax,
the incidence of which falls on all persons within a State.
The house tax has to be paid only by those who own
houses, the land tax by those who possess lands,
municipal taxes or rates will fall on those who have
properties within a municipality. Persons, who do not
have houses, lands or properties within municipalities,
would not have to pay these taxes, but nevertheless
these impositions come within the category of taxes and
nobody can say that it is the choice of these people to
own lands or houses or specified kinds of properties, so
that there is no compulsion on them to pay taxes at all.
122
Compulsion lies in the fact that payment is enforceable by
law against a man in spite of his unwillingness or want of
consent; and this element is present in taxes as well as in
fees. Of course, in some cases whether a man would
come within the category of a service receiver may be a
matter of his choice, but that by itself would not
constitute a major test which can be taken as the
criterion of this species of imposition. The distinction
between a tax and a fee lies primarily in the fact that a
tax is levied as a part of a common burden, while a fee is
a payment for a special benefit or privilege. Fees confer a
special capacity, although the special advantage, as for
example in the case of registration fees for documents or
marriage licences, is secondary to the primary motive of
regulation in the public interest [Vide Findlay Shirras on
Science of Public Finance, Vol. I, p. 202]. Public interest
seems to be at the basis of all impositions, but in a fee it
is some special benefit which the individual receives. As
Seligman says, it is the special benefit accruing to the
individual which is the reason for payment in the case of
fees; in the case of a tax, the particular advantage if it
exists at all is an incidental result of State action [Vide
Seligman's Essays on Taxation, p.408]"
(Emphasis Supplied)
The Apex Court has clearly indicated what are the characteristics of
a fee distinguishing it from what could be tax. What is held by the
Apex Court is that a fee is generally a charge for special service
rendered to individuals by Governmental agencies, which is to be
uniform, without reference to the capacity of the payer.
(ii) CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA v. LIBERTY CINEMA2:
".... .... ....
2
1964 SCC OnLine SC 65
123
20. The conclusion to which we then arrive is that the
levy under Section 548 is not a fee as the Act does not provide
for any services of special kind being rendered resulting in
benefits to the person on whom it is imposed. The work of
inspection done by the Corporation which is only to see
that the terms of the licence are observed by the licensee
is not a service to him. No question hew arises of
correlating the amount of the levy to the costs of any
service. The levy is a tax. It is not disputed, it may be
stated, that if the levy is not a fee, it must be a tax.
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the afore-extracted judgment holds that unless
any service of a special kind is rendered resulting in benefits to the
person on whom it is imposed, the levy would not be a fee, but a
tax.
(iii) NAGAR MAHAPALIKA v. DURGA DAS BHATTACHARYA3:
".... .... ....
10. We pass on to consider the next question raised
in this appeal, namely, whether there was a quid pro quo
for the licence fees realised by the appellant and whether
the impost was a fee in the strict sense as contemplated
by Section 294 of the Act. A finding has been recorded in
the present case by the trial court that a sum of T
1,43,741/710 was spent by the Municipal Board for
providing facilities and amenities to owners and drivers
of rickshaws. This sum of f 1,43,741/7/0 is made up of the
following items:
"Rs. 68,000 spent over the paving of bye-lanes, in these
the only conveyance that can operate is a rickshaw.
3
1968 SCC OnLine SC 228
124
Rs. 20,000 spent as expenses for lighting of streets and
lanes.
Rs. 47,741/7/0 spent in making provision for parking
grounds.
Rs. 8000 spent on payment of salary to the staff maintained
for issuing licences and inspecting rickshaws".
The High Court was of the opinion that the amount of Rs.
68,000 spent for paving of bye-lanes and Rs. 20,000 for lighting
of streets and lanes cannot be considered to have been spent in
rendering services to the rickshaw owners and rickshaw drivers.
The reason was that under Section 7(a) of the Act it was the
statutory duty of the Municipal Board to light public streets and
places and under clause (h) of the same section to construct
and maintain public streets, culverts etc. The expenditure under
these two items was incurred by the Municipal Board in the
discharge of its statutory duty and it is manifest that the licence
fee cannot be imposed for reimbursing the cost of ordinary
municipal services which the Municipal Board was bound under
the statute to provide to the general public (See the decision of
the Madras High Court in India Sugar and Refineries
Ltd. v. Municipal Council Hospet ) [ILR 1943 Mad 521]. If these
two items are excluded from consideration the balance of
expenditure incurred by the Municipal Board for the benefit of
the licensees is Rs. 55,741/7/0. In other words, the expenditure
constituted about 44% of the total income of the Municipal
Board from the licensees. In our opinion, there is no
sufficient quid pro quo established in the circumstances
of this case and the High Court was therefore right in
holding that the imposition of the licence fees at the rate
of Rs. 30 on each rickshaw owner and Rs. 5 on each
rickshaw driver was ultra vires and illegal.
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court, in the aforesaid case, holds that if there is no
sufficient quid pro quo established, imposition of fees would become
illegal.
125
(iv) DELHI RACE CLUB LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA4:
"35. In the light of the tests laid down in Hingir-Rampur
[AIR 1961 SC 459: (1961) 2 SCR 537] and followed in Kesoram
Industries [(2004) 10 SCC 201], it is manifest that the true test
to determine the character of a levy, delineating "tax" from
"fee", is the primary object of the levy and the essential purpose
intended to be achieved. In the instant case, it is plain from the
scheme of the Act that its sole aim is regulation, control and
management of horse racing. Such a regulation is necessary in
public interest to control the act of betting and wagering as well
as to promote the sport in the Indian context. To achieve this
purpose, licences are issued subject to compliance with the
conditions laid down therein, which inter alia include
maintenance of accounts and furnishing of periodical returns;
amount of stakes which may be allotted for different kinds of
horses; the measures to be taken for the training of the persons
to become jockeys, to encourage Indian- bred horses and Indian
jockeys; the inclusion and association of such persons as the
Government may nominate as stewards or members in the
conduct and management of the horse racing. The violation of
the conditions of the licence or the Act is penalised under the
Act besides a provision for cognizance by a court not inferior to
a Metropolitan Magistrate. To ensure compliance with these
conditions, the 1985 Rules empower the District Officer or an
Entertainment Tax Officer to conduct inspection of the race club
at reasonable times. Thus, the nature of the impost is not
merely compulsory exaction of money to augment the revenue
of the State but its true object is to regulate, control, manage
and encourage the sport of horse racing as is distinctly spelled
out in the Act and the 1985 Rules. For the purpose of
enforcement, wide powers are conferred on various
authorities to enable them to supervise, regulate and
monitor the activities relating to the racecourse with a
view to secure proper enforcement of the provisions.
Therefore, by applying the principles laid down in the
aforesaid decisions, it is clear that the said levy is a "fee"
and not a "tax"."
(Emphasis supplied)
4
(2012) 8 SCC 680
126
The Apex Court, in the afore-said case, has again elaborated as to
what is a tax and a fee. By considering the services rendered by the
Race Club, the Apex Court holds it to be a fee and not a tax.
(v) JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. v. STATE OF HARYANA5:
".... .... ....
67.2. Secondly, because the concept of compensatory tax
obliterates the distinction between a tax and a fee. The
essential difference between a tax and a fee is that while
a tax has no element of quid pro quo, a fee without that
element cannot be validly levied. The difference between
a tax and the fee has been examined and elaborated in a
long line of decisions of this Court. (See Commr., Hindu
Religious Endowments v. Sri LakshmindraThirthaSwamiar of Sri
Shirur Mutt [ Commr., Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri
Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri ShirurMutt , AIR 1954 SC
282 : 1954 SCR 1005] Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. State of
Orissa [ Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. State of Orissa , AIR 1954
SC 400], Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of
Orissa [ Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa , AIR
1961 SC 459], Corpn. of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema [ Corpn. of
Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema , AIR 1965 SC 1107] Kewal Krishan
Puri v. State of Punjab [ Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab ,
(1980) 1 SCC 416], Krishi UpajMandi Samiti v. Orient Paper and
Industries Ltd. [ Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Orient Paper and
Industries Ltd. , (1995) 1 SCC 655],State of Gujarat v. Akhil
Gujarat Pravasi V.S. Mahamandal [ State of Gujarat v. Akhil
Gujarat Pravasi V.S. Mahamandal , (2004) 5 SCC 155]
and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [ State of
5
(2017) 12 SCC 1
127
W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. , (2004) 10 SCC 201 : AIR
2005 SC 1646])".
(Emphasis supplied)
A Nine Judge Bench of the Apex Court, in JINDAL STAINLESS
LTD supra, while considering the difference between a tax and a
fee, holds that element of quid pro quo is essential for an impost to
be considered a fee.
POWER TO DEMAND FEES:
(vi) AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.
SHARADKUMAR JAYANTIKUMAR PASAWALLA6:
".... .... ....
7. After giving our anxious consideration to the
contentions raised by Mr. Goswami, it appears to us that in a
fiscal matter it will not be proper to hold that even in the
absence of express provision, a delegated authority can
impose tax or fee. In our view, such power of imposition
of tax and/or fee by delegated authority must be very
specific and there is no scope of implied authority for
imposition of such tax or fee. It appears to us that the
delegated authority must act strictly within the
parameters of the authority delegated to it under the Act
and it will not be proper to bring the theory of implied
intent or the concept of incidental and ancillary power in
the matter of exercise of fiscal power. The facts and
circumstances in the case of District Council of Jowai are entirely
different. The exercise of powers by the Autonomous Jaintia
6
(1992) 3 SCC 285
128
Hills Districts are controlled by the constitutional provisions and
in the special facts of the case, this Court has indicated that the
realisation of just fee for a specific purpose by the autonomous
District was justified and such power was implied. The said
decision cannot be made applicable in the facts of this case or
the same should not be held to have laid down any legal
proposition that in matters of imposition of tax or fees, the
question of necessary intendment may be looked into when
there is no express provision for imposition of fee or tax. The
other decision in Khargram Panchayat Samiti case [(1987) 3
SCC 82] also deals with the exercise of incidental and
consequential power in the field of administrative law and the
same does not deal with the power of imposing tax and fee."
8. The High Court has referred to the decisions of this
Court in Hingir case [AIR 1961 SC 459 : (1961) 2 SCR 537]
and Jagannath Ramanuj case [AIR 1954 SC 400 : 1954 SCR
1046] and Delhi Municipal Corporation case [(1983) 3 SCC 229 :
1983 SCC (Tax) 154 : AIR 1983 SC 617]. It has been
consistently held by this Court that whenever there is
compulsory exaction of any money, there should be specific
provision for the same and there is no room for intendment.
Nothing is to be read and nothing is to be implied and one
should look fairly to the language used. We are, therefore,
unable to accept the contention of Mr. Goswami. Accordingly,
there is no occasion to interfere with the impugned decision of
the High Court. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed
with no order as to costs.
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court, in the afore-said judgment, has considered
manifold circumstances which would distinguish a tax from a fee
and has also held that there can be no implied power in fiscal
matters. The power to impose must be specific and such imposition
must be within the parameters of the Authority to impose. There
129
cannot be incidental or ancillary power in the matter of
exercise of fiscal power.
(vii) CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. SHREY
MERCANTILE (P) LTD7:
"The short question which arises for determination in
these civil appeals by grant of special leave by the Calcutta
Municipal whether the imposition for the process of change in
the name of the owner in the assessment books of the
Corporation is in the nature of "a fee" or "tax".
.... .... ....
17. These well-settled principles have been reiterated by
this Court in the case of CCE v. Chhata Sugar Co. Ltd. [(2004) 3
SCC 466] in which it has been held : (SCC pp. 483-86, paras
18-30).
"18. The Constitution of India postulates either
a tax ora fee. However, the use of the expression 'tax'
or 'fee' in a statute is not decisive; as on a proper
construction thereof and having regard to its scope
and purport, 'fee' may also be held to be a tax.
xxxxxx
25. In Liberty Cinema [(1965) 2 SCR 477 : AIR 1965
SC 1107] this Court, while interpreting Section 548 of the
Calcutta Municipal Act providing for grant of a licence,
observed : (AIR p. 1116, para 18)
'The reference to the heading of Part V can at most
indicate that the provisions in it were for conferring benefit
on the public at large. The cinema house owners paying
the levy would not as such owners be getting that benefit.
We are not concerned with the benefit, if any, received by
them as members of the public for that is not special
benefit meant for them. We are clear in our mind that if
7
(2005) 4 SCC 245
130
looking at the terms of the provision authorising the levy,
it appears that it is not for special services rendered to the
person on whom the levy is imposed, it cannot be a fee
wherever it may be placed in the statute. A consideration
of where Sections 443 and 548 are placed in the Act is
irrelevant for determining whether the levy imposed by
them is a fee or a tax.
It was further observed : (AIR p.1116, paras 19-20)
19. xxxxxx
20. The conclusion to which we then arrive is that
the levy under Section 548 is not a fee as the Act does not
provide for any services of special kind being rendered
resulting in benefits to the person on whom it is imposed.
The work of inspection done by the Corporation which is
only to see that the terms of the licence are observed by the
licensee is not a service to him. No question here arises of
correlating the amount of the levy to the costs of any
service. The levy is a tax. It is not disputed, it may be
stated, that if the levy is not a fee, it must be a tax.'
xxxxxx
26. A regulatory statute may also contain taxing
provisions.
27. The decisions of this Court point out towards the
need of existence of the element of quid pro quo for
imposition of fee; be it to the person concerned or be it to a
group to which he belongs; irrespective of the fact as to
whether the benefit of such service is received directly or
indirectly.
28. The point at issue is required to be considered keeping
in view the aforementioned legal position.
29. By reason of the provisions of the U.P. Sheera
Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964, the trade carried out by the
respondents is sought to be regulated.
30. Some service, therefore, was required to be rendered
by the State or the statutory authority to the owners of the factory
producing molasses or the molasses industries generally if an
impost by way of 'fee' was to be levied."
18. Applying the above principles to the present case, we
find enumeration of obligatory and discretionary functions of the
Corporation in Sections 29 and 30 under which civic services are
rendered to the ratepayers for which taxes are leviable as
mentioned in Section 170 of the Act. As stated above, the entire
131
Part IV of the Act deals not only with the levy of taxes, it also
deals with assessments, valuation, collection and recovery of
taxes. The entire machinery for filing of returns, objections and
inspection of records and properties comes under the part which
deals with taxation. The maintenance of assessment books,
annual reports, valuation reports, etc. all come under the part
which deals with taxation. Section 183 which deals with notice
of transfer also comes under the same part. It is true that under
Section 183(5), fees are payable for mutation as may be
prescribed under the regulations, still as stated above, the
primary object of such a charge is to augment the revenue and
the levy of such a charge cannot be treated to be a part of the
regulatory measure. Further, under the Regulations, the
Corporation while prescribing fees has levied fees on ad valorem
basis which is one mors circumstance to show that the
impugned levy is in the nature of tax and not in the nature of a
fee. Further, the quantum of levy indicates that it is a tax and
not a fee. The analysis of the various provisions of the Act and
the impugned Regulations shows that the impugned levy is in
exercise of power of taxation under the said Act to augment the
revenues primarily and not as a part of regulatory measure. As
stated above, the purpose of mutation is to register the transfer
in the records of the Corporation which in turn would help the
Corporation to recover taxes from the existing taxpayers.
Therefore, no special benefit results to the transferee who is
made statutorily liable to inform the Corporation of the change,
if any, in the name of the person primarily liable to pay the tax.
.... .... ....
21. Now coming to the question of challenge to the
levy as arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of
Article 14, we find that the functions of the Corporation
with regard to mutation remain the same, whether the
applicant is a transferee under a conveyance or a lessee
or a beneficiary under a Will or an heir in the case of
intestate succession. Once an application for mutation is
made, the same is examined by the department and after
hearing the objections, if any, the record is ordered to be
changed. Ultimately, the exercise is for fiscal purpose.
Similarly, the property valuation may be below Rs.
50,000 or above Rs. 2 lakhs, the function of the
Corporation in making the mutation entry remains the
132
same. Similarly, whatever may be the cause of mutation,
whether it is a case of transfer or devolution, the activity
of mutation remains constant in all the cases. The
expenses incurred in all the cases also cannot vary,
whatever be the value of the property or the cause of
mutation. In the circumstances, there is no reason given
for charging different rates depending on the value of the
property and the cause of transfer. By doing so, the
incidence of the levy falls differently on persons similarly
situated resulting in violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution. Moreover, the quantum of fees is
disproportionate to the so-called services" which is one
more circumstance showing arbitrariness in the levy of
such imposition. So far as Article 14 is concerned, the
courts in India have always examined whether the
classification was based on intelligible differentia and
whether the differentia had a reasonable nexus with the
object of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of
India [(2001) 2 SCC 386].)
22. Applying the said tests to the impugned levy,
we find that the levy is irrational, arbitrary,
discriminatory and beyond Section 183(5) of the said
1980 Act.
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court, here again, elaborately considers the distinction
between a fee and a tax and holds that fee can be charged only for
services that are rendered.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF FEE:
16. Levy of fee, in its exclusiveness, has also been a subject
matter of judicial interpretation.
133
16.1. The Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta
considering drainage development fees imposed by CALCUTTA
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and others held in ASIAN
LEATHER LIMITED v. KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORAITON8,
as follows:
".... .... ....
12. At this juncture, it will be profitable to refer to the
well-known proposition of law that a natural person has the
capacity to do all lawful things unless his capacity has been
curtailed by some rule of law. It is equally a fundamental
principle that in case of a statutory corporation, it is just the
other way. The Corporation has no power to do anything unless
those powers are conferred on it by the statutes, which crates
it. See: Manimuddin Bepari v. Chairman of the Municipal
Commissioner, Dacca reported in 40 CWN 17.
.... .... ....
14. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles and
after going through the various provisions of the Act, the
Rules and the Regulations framed thereunder, referred to
by Mr. Mitra, the learned senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the appellant, we do not find that either in the
Act or the Rules or the Regulations framed thereunder,
any right or authority has been to the Corporation to
realize drainage development fees from the owners of the
land or the building at the time of sanction of the building
plan as condition precedent for grant of permission to
raise building.
... ... ...
23. We have already indicated that unless
specifically authorized by the statute, a Corporation
cannot realize any amount from the citizen and so far, the
8
2007 SCC OnLine Cal 268
134
delegated legislation Is concerned, nothing can be
Implied for the justification of realization of any amount
either as tax or as fees, which Is not specifically
authorized.
(Emphasis applied)
16.2. A Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat, again
considering imposition of tax/fee on installation of mobile
communication towers by the Gujarat Urban Development and
Urban Housing Department holds in the case of INDUS TOWERS
LIMITED V. STATE OF GUJARAT9, as follows:
".... .... ....
24. In this regard it may be germane to refer to the
provisions of Articles 265 and 243-X of the Constitution which
reads thus:
"265. Taxes not to be imposed save by
authority of law. "No tax shall be levied or collected
except by authority of law."
"243-X. Power to impose taxes by, and
Funds of, the Municipalities. - The Legislature of a
State may, by law,"
(a) authorize a Municipality to levy, collect and
appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees in
accordance with such procedure and subject to such
limits;
(b) assign to a Municipality such taxes, duties tolls and
fees levied and collected by the State Government
for such purposes and subject to such conditions and
limits;
9
2010 SCC OnLine Guj 3777
135
(c) provide the making such grants-in- aid to the
Municipalities from the Consolidated Fund of the
State; and
(d) provide for constitution of such Funds for crediting all
moneys received, respectively, by or on behalf of the
Municipalities and also for the withdrawal of such
moneys there from, as may be specified in the law.
.... .... ....
27. Apart from Article 265 which prohibits levy or
recovery of tax except by authority of law, Article 243-X
specifically provides that the Legislature of a State may,
by law authorize a Municipality to levy, collect and
appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and fees in
accordance such procedure and subject to such limits as
may be specified by law. Thus, on a conjoint reading of
Articles 265 and 243-X, there is a prohibition against levy
and recovery of tax by a Municipality unless the
Legislature of the State in exercise of powers under
Article 243-X authorizes the Municipality to levy and
collect such taxes, fees etc. In the present case, a bare
reading of the impugned Government resolution indicates
that the same has not been issued in exercise of any
statutory power. However, even if the statutory provision
under which the power is derived is not mentioned, so
long as there is some statutory provision under which
such power is derived, the Government resolution would
not stand vitiated. In the circumstances it would next be
required to be examined as to whether there is any
statutory provision which vests in the State or the
Municipal Corporations or Municipalities, the power to
levy and collect annual permission fees and installation
charges for erection of mobile telecommunication towers
put up by cellular companies.
.... .... ....
29. Since the levy in question is termed annual
permission fee and installation charge, it may be pertinent to
refer to the provisions of Chapter XXII of the BPMC Act which
provides for "Licences and Permits". The said Chapter is
subdivided into nine parts as under:
136
1. Licensing of Surveyors, Architechs or Engineers, Structural
Designers, Clerks of Works and Plumbers;
2. Trade licences and other licences for keeping animals and
certain articles;
3. Licences for sale in municipal markets;
4. Licences for private markets;
5. Licences for sale of Articles of Food outside of Markets;
6. Licensing of Butchers, etc.;
7. Licensing for diary products;
8. Licences for hawking, etc.; and
9. General provisions regarding licences and permits.
.... .... ....
34. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is
apparent that insofar as Municipal Corporations are
concerned, the respondents have not been in a position
to point out any statutory force behind the levy of annual
permission fee and/or installation charges. The Apex
Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur v. McDowell and
Co. Limited (supra) has held thus:
"Tax", "duty", "cess' or "fee" constituting a class denotes
to various kinds of imposts by State in its sovereign power of
taxation to raise revenue for the State. Within the expression of
each specie each expression denotes different kind of impost
depending on the purpose for which they are levied. This power
can be exercised in any of its manifestation only under any law
authorizing levy and collection of tax as envisaged under Article
265 which uses only the expression that no "tax" shall be levied
and collected except authorised by law. It is its elementary
meaning conveys that to support a tax legislative action is
essential, it cannot be levied and collected in the absence of any
legislative sanction by exercise of executive power of State
under Article 73 by the Union or Article 162 by the State"
In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the decision cited hereinabove, it is apparent
that in absence of legislative sanction, the State
Government in exercise of its executive power under
Article 162 cannot levy and collect annual permission fee
137
and installation charges in relation to mobile
telecommunication towers put up by Cellular companies."
(Emphasis supplied)
16.3. Later, the Apex Court in the case of M.CHANDRU v.
MEMBER-SECRETARY, CHENNAI METROPOLITAN
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY10, considering what is quid pro quo
has held as follows:
".... .... ....
Quid pro quo
23. The State or the Board did not state as to on what
basis the rate of Rs 64 per square metre was fixed. What was
the amount to be spent towards services to be rendered to the
multi-storeyed and special buildings had not been spelt out.
What had merely been stated was that the amount was
necessary to be spent for overall development of the water
supply and sewerage system.
24. It is not contended before us that IDC is not a
fee but a tax. If it is a fee, the principle of quid pro quo
shall apply. Like a State, all other authorities which are
statutorily empowered to levy the same must spell out as
to on what basis the same is charged. The State has not
placed any material before the High Court. The High Court
has also not addressed itself properly on the same issue.
It failed to pose unto itself a relevant question. It
proceeded on the basis as if overall development charges
by itself is sufficient to levy a fee without spelling out
how the services rendered will satisfy the equivalence
doctrine for the purpose of levy and collection of fees.
10
(2009) 4 SCC 72
138
25. In Krishna Das v. Town Area Committee,
Chirgaon [(1990) 3 SCC 645 : 1990 SCC (Tax) 374] this Court
observed: (SCC p. 652, paras 22-24)
"22. A fee is paid for performing a function. A
fee is not ordinarily considered to be a tax. If the fee
is merely to compensate an authority for services
performed or as compensation for the services
rendered, it can hardly be called a tax. However, if
the object of the fee is to provide general revenue of
the authority rather than to compensate it, and the
amount of the fee has no relation to the value of the
services, the fee will amount to a tax. In the words of
Cooley, 'A charge fixed by statute for the service to be
performed by an officer, where the charge has no
relation to the value of the services performed and
where the amount collected eventually finds its way
into the treasury of the branch of the Government
whose officer or officers collect the charge is not a
fee but a tax.'
23. Under the Indian Constitution the State
Government's power to levy a tax is not identical with
that of its power to levy a fee. While the powers to
levy taxes is conferred on the State Legislatures by
the various entries in List II, in it there is Entry 66
relating to fees, empowering the State Government to
levy fees 'in respect of any of the matters in this list,
but not including fees taken in any court'. The result
is that each State Legislature has the power, to levy
fees, which is co-extensive with its powers to
legislate with respect to substantive matters and it
may levy a fee with reference to the services that
would be rendered by the State under such law. The
State may also delegate such a power to a local
authority. When a levy or an imposition is questioned,
the court has to inquire into its real nature inasmuch
as though an imposition is labelled as a fee, in reality
it may not be a fee but a tax, and vice versa. The
question to be determined is whether the power to
levy the tax or fee is conferred on that authority and
if it falls beyond, to declare it ultra vires.
24. We have seen that a fee is a payment levied
by an authority in respect of services performed by it
for the benefit of the payer, while a tax is payable for
139
the common benefits conferred by the authority on all
taxpayers. A fee is a payment made for some special
benefit enjoyed by the payer and the payment is
proportional to such benefit. Money raised by fee is
appropriated for the performance of the service and
does not merge in the general revenue. Where,
however, the service is indistinguishable from the
public services and forms part of the latter it is
necessary to inquire what is the primary object of the
levy and the essential purpose which it is intended to
achieve. While there is no quid pro quo between a
taxpayer and the authority in case of a tax, there is a
necessary co-relation between fee collected and the
service intended to be rendered of course the quid
pro quo need not be understood in mathematical
equivalence but only in a fair correspondence
between the two. A broad co-relationship is all that is
necessary."
26. In Jindal Stainless Ltd. (2) v. State of
Haryana [(2006) 7 SCC 241] a Constitution Bench of this Court
stated: (SCC p. 267, paras 40-41)
"40. Tax is levied as a part of common burden.
The basis of a tax is the ability or the capacity of the
taxpayer to pay. The principle behind the levy of a tax
is the principle of ability or capacity. In the case of a
tax, there is no identification of a specific benefit and
even if such identification is there, it is not capable of
direct measurement. In the case of a tax, a particular
advantage, if it exists at all, is incidental to the
State's action. It is assessed on certain elements of
business, such as, manufacture, purchase, sale,
consumption, use, capital, etc. but its payment is not
a condition precedent. It is not a term or condition of
a licence. A fee is generally a term of a licence. A tax
is a payment where the special benefit, if any, is
converted into common burden.
41. On the other hand, a fee is based on the
'principle of equivalence'. This principle is the
converse of the 'principle of ability' to pay. In the
case of a fee or compensatory tax, the 'principle of
equivalence' applies. The basis of a fee or a
compensatory tax is the same. The main basis of a fee
or a compensatory tax is the quantifiable and
140
measurable benefit. In the case of a tax, even if there
is any benefit, the same is incidental to the
government action and even if such benefit results
from the government action, the same is not
measurable. Under the principle of equivalence, as
applicable to a fee or a compensatory tax, there is an
indication of a quantifiable data, namely, a benefit
which is measurable."
27. In Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market
Committee v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. [(2008) 5 SCC 575] this
Court observed: (SCC p. 579, para 14)
"14. The quantum of recovery, however, need not be
based on mathematical exactitude as such cost is levied
having regard to the liability of all the licensees or a section
of them. It would, however, require some calculation."
It was further stated: (Hindustan Lever case% [(2008) 5 SCC
575] , SCC p. 580, para 18)
"18. Cost of supervision, if borne by the State has to
be recovered by it. The burden was, therefore, on the State
to justify the levy. Even the general or special order, if any,
purported to have been issued by the State has not been
brought on record. On what basis, the supervision charges
were being calculated is not known. The premise for levy or
recovery of the amount of supervisory charges is not
founded on any factual matrix. Only the source of the power
has been stated but the basis for exercise of the power has
not been disclosed."
28. Recently, in Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. State of
H.P. [(2009) 3 SCC 157: (2009) 1 Scale 510] this Court
opined that the jurisdiction of the State to impose such a
levy is limited. When a fee is levied, the question as
regards "aspects of power to levy fee vis-à-vis tax" must
be borne in mind.
29. Furthermore, it was held in A.P. Paper Mills
Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [(2000) 8 SCC 167: 2000 SCC (L&S) 1077]
that even if a fee is levied for issuance of permit, it was only for
the purpose of recovering the administrative charges. (See
also Ashok Lanka v. Rishi Dixit [(2005) 5 SCC 598] .)
141
30. This Court in Kerala SamsthanaChethuThozhilali
Union v. State of Kerala [(2006) 4 SCC 327 : 2006 SCC (L&S)
796] , upon noticing State of Kerala v. Maharashtra Distilleries
Ltd. [(2005) 11 SCC 1] opined: (Kerala Samsthana case%
[(2006) 4 SCC 327 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 796] , SCC p. 343, para
39)
"39. In State of Kerala v. Maharashtra Distilleries
Ltd.% [(2005) 11 SCC 1] this Court took notice of the
provisions of Section 18-A of the Act. It was held that the
State had no jurisdiction to realise the turnover tax from the
manufacturers in the garb of exercising its monopoly power.
It was held that turnover tax cannot be directed to be paid
either by way of excise duty or as a price of privilege."
31. Even while levying a fee, a quantum jump is
deprecated.
32. In Indian Mica Micanite Industries v. State of
Bihar [(1971) 2 SCC 236] it has been held: (SCC pp. 242-43,
para 17)
"17. ... There cannot be a double levy in that
regard. In the opinion of the High Court the subsequent
transfer of denatured spirit and possession of the same in
the hands of various persons such as wholesale dealer,
retail dealer or other manufacturers also requires close
and effective supervision because of the risk of the
denatured spirit being converted into palatable liquor and
thus evading heavy duty. Assuming this conclusion to be
correct, by doing so, the State is rendering no service to
the consumer. It is merely protecting its own rights.
Further in this case, the State which was in a position to
place material before the Court to show what services had
been rendered by it to the appellant and other similar
licensees, the costs or at any rate the probable costs that
can be said to have been incurred for rendering those
services and the amount realised as fees has failed to do
so. On the side of the appellant, it is alleged that the State
is collecting huge amount as fees and that it is rendering
little or no service in return. The co-relationship between
the services rendered and the fee levied is essentially a
question of fact. Prima facie, the levy appears to be
excessive even if the State can be said to be rendering
some service to the licensees. The State ought to be in
142
possession of the material from which the co-relationship
between the levy and the services rendered can be
established at least in a general way. But the State has
not chosen to place those materials before the Court.
Therefore the levy under the impugned rule cannot be
justified."
33. In this case, the State in fact has not produced
any material whatsoever before the High Court, which it
was required for meeting the challenge on imposition of
fee by it. As in Mohan Meakin Ltd.% [(2009) 3 SCC 157 :
(2009) 1 Scale 510] , in this case also no justification for
levy of fee has been placed before the High Court, we are
of the opinion that the matter should be remitted to the
High Court for consideration of the matter afresh."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. The Apex Court, in the case of GAURAV KUMAR v.
UNION OF INDIA11, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
31. In CIT v. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [CIT v. McDowell & Co.
Ltd., (2009) 10 SCC 755 : (2009) 314 ITR 167] , a three-Judge
Bench of this Court enunciated the principles for interpreting
Article 265 read with Article 366(28) : (SCC p. 763, paras 21-
22)
"21. "Tax", "duty", "cess" or "fee" constituting a
class denotes various kinds of imposts by State in its
sovereign power of taxation to raise revenue for the State.
Within the expression of each specie each expression
denotes different kinds of impost depending on the purpose
for which they are levied. This power can be exercised in
any of its manifestations only under any law authorising
levy and collection of tax as envisaged under Article 265
which uses only the expression that no "tax" shall be levied
and collected except authorised by law. It in its elementary
11
(2025) 1 SCC 641
143
meaning conveys that to support a tax legislative action is
essential, it cannot be levied and collected in the absence of
any legislative sanction by exercise of executive power of
State under Article 73 by the Union or Article 162 by the
State.
22. Under Article 366(28) "Taxation" has been
defined to include the imposition of any tax or impost
whether general or local or special and tax shall be
construed accordingly. "Impost" means compulsory levy.
The well-known and well-settled characteristic of "tax" in its
wider sense includes all imposts. Imposts in the context
have following characteristics:
(i) The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty.
(ii) "Law" in the context of Article 265 means an Act of
legislature and cannot comprise an executive order
or rule without express statutory authority.
(iii) The term "tax" under Article 265 read with Article
366(28) includes imposts of every kind viz. tax,
duty, cess or fees.
(iv) As an incident of sovereignty and in the nature of
compulsory exaction, a liability founded on principle
of contract cannot be a "tax" in its technical sense as
an impost, general, local or special."
32. The Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
differentiates between taxing entries and general entries.
Subjects pertaining to the levy of taxes must be traced to
specific taxing entries enumerated in either List I or List II.
[M.P.V. Sundararamier& Co. v. State of A.P., (1958) 9 STC 298
: 1958 SCC OnLine SC 22] In addition, Parliament has the
residuary power under Article 248 read with List I Entry 97 to
legislate on matters not enumerated in List II or List III,
including on matters of taxation. The power of the legislature to
levy fees is dealt with under separate heads : (i) List I Entry 96
empowers Parliament to levy fees in respect of any matters in
List I; (ii) List II Entry 66 empowers the State Legislatures to
levy fees in respect of any matters in List II; and (iii) List III
Entry 47 empowers both Parliament and the State Legislatures
(subject to Article 254) to levy fees for any matter enumerated
144
in List III. Parliament has prescribed an enrolment fee under
Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act under List I Entry 96.
33. The legislature can delegate its power to levy fees.
[Kandivali Coop. Industrial Estate v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater
Mumbai, (2015) 11 SCC 161, para 25] Since a fee is an impost
and a compulsory exaction of money, the power of a delegate to
levy fees must flow from the express authority of law.
In Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharadkumar
Jayantikumar Pasawalla [Ahmedabad Urban Development
Authority v. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla, (1992) 3
SCC 285, para 7] this Court observed : (SCC p. 292, para 7)
"7. ... In our view, such power of imposition of tax
and/or fee by delegated authority must be very specific and
there is no scope for implied authority for imposition of such
tax or fee. It appears to us that the delegated authority
must act strictly within the parameters of the authority
delegated to it under the Act and it will not be proper to
bring the theory of implied intent or the concept of
incidental and ancillary power in the matter of exercise of
fiscal power."
34. The principles that flow from the above
discussion are:
(i) a fee is an impost in terms of Article 366(28);
(ii) the expression "tax" occurring in Article 265 means
all imposts, including fees and therefore any fee
must be levied by the authority of a valid law;
(iii) fees being a compulsory exaction of money, the
power to levy fees cannot be implied;
(iv) delegation of the power to levy fees to a delegate of
the legislature should be specifically provided for
under the parent legislation; and
(v) the delegate must strictly act within the parameters
of the legislative policy laid down by the parent
legislation when levying fees and taxes."
... ... ...
145
101. The decision of SBCs to charge exorbitant fees
also suffers from the vice of manifest arbitrariness.
In Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [Khoday
Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1996) 10 SCC 304,
para 13] , this Court laid down the following principles for
challenging delegated legislation : (i) the test of arbitrary
action which applies to executive actions does not
necessarily apply to delegated legislation; (ii) a delegated
legislation can be struck down only if it is manifestly
arbitrary; and (iii) a delegated legislation is manifestly
arbitrary if it is not in conformity with the statute or
offends Article 14. In Clariant International
Ltd. v. SEBI [Clariant International Ltd. v. SEBI, (2004) 8
SCC 524, para 63 : (2004) 122 Comp Cas 112] , a three-
Judge Bench of this Court held that when any criterion is
fixed by a statute or by a policy, the subordinate
authority must follow the policy formulation broadly and
substantially. Non-conformity with the legislative policy
will render delegated legislation arbitrary. [Union of
India v. Cipla Ltd., (2003) 7 SCC 1, para 9]"
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court summarises the law on what a fee is and how it can
be imposed. It is thus, a settled principle of constitutional law,
reiterated time without number, that no impost in the nature of tax
or fee may be exacted from a citizen, save by the authority of law;
and law in this context must mean not, the executive fiat of the
Authority nor the circular of a department, but an enactment of the
legislature clothed with the constitutional mandate and fortified by
statutory sanction. Article 265 of the Constitution of India declares
146
that no tax shall be levied or collected except by Authority of law, it
necessarily encompasses within its sweep every compulsory
exaction, however named. Therefore, as a matter of inexorable
logic, the power to levy a fee must be treaceable to a
statute, clearly expressed, never left to conjecture, inference
or executive convenience.
18. The Authority to impose a pecuniary burden on any
citizen however big or small, cannot be presumed nor can it
be by implication; it must spring directly from the legislation
and if the legislature has chosen to delegate such power, the
delegation must be express, unambiguous and circumscribed
within the boundaries of the legislative policy. Tested on the
anvil of these principles, the impugned Circular, whereby a
so-called delay fee has been sought to be imposed on
promoters and developers stands exposed as utterly failing
of statutory parentage. It finds no sustenance in the Act; it
locates no foundation in the Rules; it is not the offspring of
delegated legislation either. It is in fact a levy, conjured into
147
existence by executive assertion, unsupported by legislative
warrant.
19. The reliance placed on Sections 11, 34 and 37 of the Act
by the respondents is wholly misplaced. Section 11 imposes duties,
but confers no power of exaction. Section 37 enables directions to
be issued, but the power to issue directions cannot, by any stretch
of judicial imagination, metamorphose into the Authority to impose
compulsory pecuniary burden. Sections 61 and 63 also does not
empower the impugned levy of delay fee, while they contemplate
penalties, those are limited to what is observed in the said
provisions. Therefore, from any of the provisions that the
respondents seek to place reliance upon, delay fee cannot be
distilled. Wherefrom this impost has arisen? This Court finds
no answer within the four corners of the statute, it is an
impost without lineage under the statute, an exaction
without authority, a levy without law. The conclusion is
therefore inevitable. The Circular stands no constitutional or
statutory footing and is an exercise of power unsupported by
authority, it must fail.
148
20. Accordingly, this Court holds that circular
purporting to impose delay fee is arbitrary, illegal and void,
for the exactions made thereunder cannot be sustained in
law and must in consequence, meet its inexorable fate - the
fate of obliteration.
21. For praefatus reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The Circular dated 03-09-2020 impugned in these
petitions stands quashed.
(iii) The petitioners in all these cases become entitled to
consequential benefits that would flow from quashment
of the Circular. The quashment of the Circular will not
come in the way of legislation or imposition of subject
fee in a manner known to law.
(iv) The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority is
directed to consider the application of the petitioner in
W.P.No.4770 of 2024 seeking withdrawal of registration
without insistence of delay fee.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
