Galaxy Homes Pvt Ltd vs Ramya Ravindran P
2025 Latest Caselaw 1327 Ker

Kerala High Court

Galaxy Homes Pvt Ltd vs Ramya Ravindran P on 9 June, 2025

​W.A.No​​.960 of 2025​                ​1​          2025:KER:39634​
                                                   ​


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
                ​

                                   PRESENT​
                                   ​

     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI​
     ​

                                      &​
                                      ​

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.​
              ​

                  TH​
                  ​
     MONDAY, THE 9​
     ​                DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 19TH JYAISHTA,​​
                      ​                                 1947​

                             WA NO. 960 OF 2025​
                             ​

         AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO.7957 OF​
         ​

                         2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA​
                         ​

APPELLANTS:​
​

       1​
       ​        ​ALAXY HOMES PVT LTD​
                G
                HAVING OFFICE AT GALAXY SQUARE, RAJAJI ROAD​
                ​
                JUNCTION, MG ROAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY​
                ​
                ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 682035​
                ​

       2​
       ​        ​ANAGING DIRECTOR​
                M
                GALAXY HOMES PVT LTD, HAVING OFFICE AT GALAXY​
                ​
                SQUARE, RAJAJI ROAD JUNCTION, MG ROAD, KOCHI,​
                ​
                ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682035​
                ​


                ​Y ADVS.​
                B
                SHRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY​
                ​
                SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)​
                ​



RESPONDENTS:​

​

1​ ​ ​AMYA RAVINDRAN P​ R AGED 41 YEARS​ ​ W/O HARIKUMAR, RESIDING AT 'USHUS'​ ​ ​W.A.No​​.960 of 2025​ ​2​ 2025:KER:39634​ ​

​GASTHIACODE, NEAR ST JOHN'S COLLEGE,​ A ANCHAL P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691306​ ​

2​ ​ ​ARI KUMAR M R​ H AGED 46 YEARS​ ​ S/O. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT 'USHUS'​ ​ AGASTHIACODE, NEAR ST JOHN'S COLLEGE,​ ​ ANCHAL P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691306​ ​

3​ ​ ​EAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY​ R THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, HAVING OFFICE AT TC NO. 14,​ ​ 6TH FLOOR, TRINITY CENTRE, 4354, KESAVADASAPURAM​ ​ JCT, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA​ ​ REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, PIN - 695004​ ​

​Y ADVS.​ B SRI.V.HARISH​ ​ SHRI.C.M.NAZAR, SC, KERALA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY​ ​ AUTHORITY​ ​ SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ​ ​

THIS​ ​ ​ WRIT​ ​ APPEAL​ ​ HAVING​ ​BEEN​ ​ FINALLY​ ​ HEARD​ ​ ON​ ​0.05.2025,​ ​ 3 THE​ ​COURT​ ​ON​ ​ 09.06.2025​ ​DELIVERED​ ​ THE​ FOLLOWING:​ ​ ​W.A.No​​.960 of 2025​ ​3​ 2025:KER:39634​ ​

​JUDGMENT​

​Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.​

​The​ ​present​ ​writ​ ​appeal​ ​assails​ ​the​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​25.03.2025​

​passed​ ​in​ ​W.P(C)No.7957​​of​​2025​​whereby​​the​​learned​​Single​​Judge​

​had​ ​issued​ ​directions​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Authorities​ ​to​ ​take​ ​immediate​ ​steps​ ​to​

​handover​ ​the​ ​possession​ ​of​ ​the​ ​apartment​ ​in​ ​question​ ​within​ ​three​

​weeks​ ​from​ ​25.03.2025,​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​law.​ ​This​ ​order​ ​is​ ​now​

​under challenge; while writ petition is still pending.​

​2.​​The​​respondents​​1​​and​​2/petitioners​​had​​filed​​the​​writ​​petition​

​with the following prayer:​

"​ (i)​​Declare​​that​​the​​1st​​Respondent​​has​​a​​statutory​​duty​ ​to​ ​invoke​ ​the​ ​powers​ ​under​ ​Section.63​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Real​ ​Estate​ ​(Regulation​ ​&​ ​Development)​ ​Act,​ ​2016​ ​and​ ​impose​ ​penalty,​ ​without​ ​any​ ​delay,​ ​as​ ​violation​ ​of​ ​Exhibit​ ​P1​ ​order​ ​is​​found​​by​ ​them.​ ​(ii)​ ​Issue​ ​a​ ​writ​ ​of​ ​mandamus​ ​or​ ​any​ ​other​ ​appropriate​ ​writ,​​order​​or​​direction​​directing​​the​​Respondents​​to​​ensure​​that​ ​the​​possession​​of​​the​​Apartment​​No.F-8​​in​​Galaxy​​Bridgewood​ ​project,​ ​is​​handed​​over​​by​​the​​2nd​​and​​3rd​​respondents​​to​​the​ ​petitioners,​ ​as​ ​ordered​ ​in​ ​Exhibit​ ​P1​ ​Final​ ​Order,​ ​as​ ​per​ ​the​ ​provisions of the RERA Act without any further delay;​ ​(iii)​​Issue​​a​​writ​​of​​mandamus​​or​​any​​other​​writ,​​order​​or​ ​direction​ ​directing​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​respondent​ ​to​ ​impose​​Rs.54,50,000​ ​as​ ​penalty​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​63​ ​of​ ​the​ ​RERA​​Act​​on​​the​​2nd​​and​ ​3rd respondents, for non-compliance of Exhibit P1 order;​ ​W.A.No​​.960 of 2025​ ​4​ 2025:KER:39634​ ​

​(iv)​ ​Petitioners​ ​may​ ​be​ ​permitted​ ​to​ ​dispense​ ​with​ ​the​ f​iling​ ​of​ ​the​ ​translations​ ​of​ ​the​ ​documents​ ​in​ ​the​ ​vernacular​ ​language in the interest of justice;​ ​(v)​​Pass​​such​​any​​other​​order,​​direction​​or​​reliefs​​as​​this​ ​Hon'ble​​Court​​may​​deem​​fit​​in​​the​​interest​​of​​justice,​​equity​​and​ ​good conscience."​

​3.​​The​​learned​​Single​​Judge​​passed​​the​​impugned​​interim​​order​

​by issuing the following directions to the appellants herein:​

"​ 7.​ ​What​ ​surprises​ ​me​ ​the​ ​most​ ​is​ ​that,​ ​as​ ​on​ ​today,​ ​despite​ ​Ext.P3​ ​being​ ​pending​ ​for​ ​the​ ​last​ ​one​ ​year,​ ​no​ ​steps​ ​have​ ​been​ ​taken​ ​by​​the​​Authority,​​to​​handover​​the​​possession​ ​of the apartment, which is reported to be completed.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​aforesaid​ ​circumstances,​ ​in​ ​exercise​ ​of​ ​the​ ​plenary​ ​powers​ ​of​ ​this​ ​Court,​ ​I​ ​direct​ ​the​ ​Authority​ ​to​ ​take​ ​immediate​ ​steps​ ​to​ ​handover​ ​the​​possession​​of​​the​​apartment​ ​in​ ​question​ ​within​ ​three​ ​weeks​ ​from​ ​today​ ​(25.03.2025),​ ​in​ ​accordance with law."​

​4.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​appellants​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​the​

​interim​ ​order​ ​under​ ​challenge​ ​was​ ​passed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Single​

​Judge​ ​without​ ​considering​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​that​ ​the​ ​directions​ ​issued​ ​therein​

​amount​ ​to​ ​grant​ ​of​ ​final​ ​relief​ ​as​ ​prayed​ ​for​ ​in​ ​relief​ ​clause​ ​No.(ii).​

​Since​ ​granting​ ​such​ ​relief​ ​at​ ​the​ ​interim​ ​stage​ ​effectively​ ​disposes​ ​of​

​the​ ​matter,​ ​the​​order​​is​​in​​the​​nature​​of​​a​​final​​order.​​Therefore,​​a​​writ​

​appeal is maintainable against such an interim order.​

​5.​ ​Per​ ​contra,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​W.A.No​​.960 of 2025​ ​5​ 2025:KER:39634​ ​

​respondents​ ​vehemently​ ​opposed​ ​the​ ​submissions​ ​raised​ ​by​ ​the​

​learned​​counsel​​for​​the​​appellants​​and​​submitted​​that​​the​​interim​​order​

​under​ ​challenge​ ​was​ ​passed​​on​​25.03.2025.​​However,​​the​​appellants​

​have​ ​not​ ​complied​ ​with​ ​the​ ​same,​ ​therefore,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​ ​need​ ​to​

​interfere​ ​with​ ​the​ ​said​ ​order.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​further​ ​submitted​

​that the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs.​

​6.​ ​Heard​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​ ​appellants​ ​and​

​the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.​

​7.​ ​Admittedly,​ ​the​ ​directions​ ​issued​ ​vide​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​order​

​could​​not​​have​​been​​granted​​by​​way​​of​​an​​interim​​measure,​​inasmuch​

​as​​they​​amount​​to​​the​​grant​​of​​final​​relief.​​Such​​relief​​could​​have​​been​

​granted​ ​only​ ​at​ ​the​ ​stage​ ​of​​final​​adjudication​​of​​the​​writ​​petition.​​The​

​Hon'ble​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​various​ ​cases​ ​has​​held​​that​​interim​​orders​

​which​ ​effectively​ ​grant​ ​the​ ​final​ ​relief​​sought​​cannot​​be​​passed​​at​​the​

​admission​ ​stage​ ​while​ ​keeping​ ​the​ ​writ​ ​petition​ ​pending.​ ​Therefore,​

​the​ ​learned​ ​Single​ ​Judge​ ​erred​ ​in​ ​issuing​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​interim​

​directions.​

​8.​ ​In​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​afore​ ​said,​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​is​ ​of​ ​the​ ​considered​ ​W.A.No​​.960 of 2025​ ​6​ 2025:KER:39634​ ​

​opinion​ ​that,​ ​looking​ ​to​ ​the​ ​fact​ ​that​ ​the​ ​interim​ ​order​ ​impugned​ ​has​

​not​ ​been​ ​complied​ ​with​ ​and​​that​​such​​directions​​could​​not​​have​​been​

​issued​ ​at​ ​the​ ​interim​ ​stage,​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​25.03.2025​ ​is​

​hereby quashed.​

​Accordingly​ ​the​ ​writ​ ​appeal​ ​stands​ ​allowed.​ ​However,​ ​having​

​regard​ ​to​ ​the​ ​pendency​ ​of​ ​the​ ​writ​ ​petition,​ ​we​ ​are​ ​of​ ​the​​considered​

​view​ ​that​ ​it​ ​would​​be​​appropriate​​to​​request​​the​​learned​​Single​​Judge​

​to dispose of the writ petition expeditiously as possible.​

​Sd/​​-​

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI​ ​ JUDGE​ ​

​d/-​ S SYAM KUMAR V.M.​ ​ JUDGE​ ​

MC/5.6​ ​ ​W.A.No​​.960 of 2025​ ​7​ 2025:KER:39634​ ​

APPENDIX OF WA 960/2025​ ​

PETITIONER ANNEXURES​ ​

Annexure A1​ ​ ​RUE​ ​ T COPY​ ​ OF​ ​ THE​ ​ ORDER​ ​ VIDE​ ​ SUO​ ​ MOTO​ PROCEEDINGS​ ​ ​ NO.L1/K-RERA/821/2024​ ​ IN​ E.P.​ ​ ​ NO.​ ​17/2024​ ​IN​ ​ COMPLAINT​ ​ NO.​ 208/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT​ ​