Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 July, 2022

CWP No.6060 of 2020                                                         1



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                AT CHANDIGARH.

104                             CWP No.6060 of 2020(O&M)
                                Date of Decision: 11.07.2022

M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.                         .....Petitioner.

                         Versus

State of Haryana and others                                  ....Respondents.
                          ***

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA

----

Present: Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional A.G. Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2.

**** Amol Rattan Singh, J.(Oral)

By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the

learned Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula, by which

the complaint filed by respondents No.3 and 4 herein before that Authority

was allowed along with a large number of other such complaints pending

before that Authority; and the petitioner and other developers (as were

respondents in the other complaints) were directed to refund the amounts

paid by the complainants along with interest calculated in terms of Rule 15

of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017,

with such interest to be calculated from the date of payments made by the

complainants upto the date of uploading of the impugned order itself passed

1 of 7

by the Authority.

Upon Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2,

submitting that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the

Supreme Court in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Ltd. Vs. State

of U.P. and others [Civil Appeal Nos.6745-6749 of 2021 arising out of

SLP (Civil) Nos.3711-3715 of 2021], learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that though he cannot dispute that fact and that the ratio of the

judgment would cover the case of the petitioner (which he says very fairly

in our opinion), however, he submits that with the petitioner not having

been allowed to file even a reply before the Authority, the matter deserves

to be remanded to the Authority on that score alone, for hearing afresh.

Having considered that argument whereas otherwise learned

counsel for the petitioner may not have been incorrect in his submission,

however, firstly, the following part of the order of the Authority needs to be

referred to in the context of the reply not being filed but with the complaint

still decided nevertheless:-

"3. The Authority accordingly proceeded with disposal of the

two complaints No.826 of 2018 (M/S Ferrous Infrastructures

Pvt. Ltd.) and complaint No. 1402 of 2018 (Maximal

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) versus M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt.

Ltd. along with 2 other complaints, No.1343 of 2018 and

complaint No.1344 of 2018. The order of disposal of the 4

2 of 7

complaints dated 1.10.2019 was uploaded on the website of the

Authority on 15.10.2019.

4. Having disposed of the above said 4 complaints in

accordance with the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the

Authority there-after took up the captioned 44 complaints for

adjudication.

5. All the complaints were accordingly listed for hearing on

15.10.2019. Since detailed facts about the project had been

captured in the orders dated 1.10.2019 in the 4 complaints with

lead complaint case No.826 of 2018, the Authority disclosed

its mind that individual complaints against the promoters

of the project will be disposed of in accordance with findings of

the Authority given in the order dated 1.10.2019.

6. When the matter was listed on 15.10.2019, Shri Saurabh

Goel and Reshab Bajaj learned counsels appeared for

respondent company (M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd.).

Both the counsels stated before the Authority that respondents

have not received copies of the complaints in any captioned

complaints except in complaint No.762 of 2018. Reply in the

said complaint No.762 had been filed by the respondents on

14.02.2019.

The Authority contradicted the stand of the learned

3 of 7

counsel for respondent that the respondents had not received

copies of the complaints Courier receipts vide which all the

complaints have been delivered at the addresses shown in Para

1 of this order were shown to them. Learned counsel

Shri Reshab Bajaj, however responded by saying that the

respondents had shifted from the given address, therefore, the

copies of complaints appear to

have been delivered to some unauthorised person. The

Authority verified the address of the respondent as was shown

in the agreement made with various

complainants. It observes that the address at which the notice

along with copies of complaint was delivered is the same as

has been shown in the

agreement. The respondents never intimated the changed

address to the complainants. For argument's sake even if it is

taken as correct that the respondents had shifted from the

earlier address. the Authority considers that it was their

responsibility to either informed the complainants of the

changed address or to make arrangements for receipt of the

mail at the earlier address.

xx xx xx

8. The Authority observes that the respondent M/s Ferrous

4 of 7

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. had duly received the notices in all the

captioned complaints. A benefit of doubt was given to them on

15.10.2019 and accordingly the learned counsels for the

respondent Shri Saurabh Goyal and Reshab Bajaj were asked

to obtain copies of the notice from the registry. Accordingly,

the respondents became fully aware of all the pending

complaints.

9. Today both the learned counsel Shri Saurabh Goyal as well

as Reshab Bajaj argued that they have not been in a position to

file reply because they had not received copies of the

complaints. In view of the foregoing discussion the Authority

decides to dismiss their arguments and further

decides to proceed with the matter for deciding it on merits.

This entire bunch of 44 complaints is being disposed of

together by this common order. Complaint No.762 of 2018

titled as Rakesh Kumar Versus M/s Ferrous

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is taken as the lead case.

10. All the counsels for the complainants spoke in unison that

they had booked the apartments over 10 years ago and have

also made substantial payments to the respondents. The

respondents have not developed the project

or have seriously violated the building plans as have been

5 of 7

observed in detailed by this Authority while disposing of 4

cross complaints with lead complaint

No. 826 of 2018. They had sought the relief of possession of

their apartments in accordance with law and provisions of

agreement along with compensation for the delay caused by the

respondents, but now in view of the findings of the

Authority in lead complaint No.826 of 2018 the relief of

possession of the apartments appears extremely difficult.