RERA Cannot Decide Complaint On Merits Before Numbering, Hearing: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has recently ruled that the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority cannot examine the merits of a complaint while considering it for numbering and reject it as not maintainable without giving the complainant an opportunity of hearing.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. quashed two Kerala RERA orders rejecting complaints filed by Renney Geo Varghese and Sindhu M. Poduval.
The court found that the authority had discussed the merits of the complaints even though they had not been numbered and the complainants had not been heard.
The court observed, “To be precise, the reference of principles of natural justice in section 38, itself indicates the necessity of providing such an opportunity to the complainants or the opposite party, before taking a decision on the same and giving such opportunity, cannot be at the discretion of the 1st respondent, but on the other hand, it is mandatory.”
Varghese and Poduval had filed separate complaints before Kerala RERA against K.P. Krishna Varma, Angleplus Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Sujesh Sathyandran.
Kerala RERA rejected Varghese's complaint on May 25, 2026, and Poduval's complaint on May 27, 2026, holding that the complaints were not maintainable.
The high court noted that the orders contained a detailed discussion of the merits of the complaints. The pendency of proceedings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, instituted by an association of allottees, was also referred to as one of the reasons forming the basis for the conclusion that the complaints were not maintainable.
The orders were passed before the complaints were numbered and before the petitioners were heard.
The court examined Section 38 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The provision allows the authority to regulate its own procedure but also requires it to be guided by the principles of natural justice.
In practical terms, while Kerala RERA can regulate how its proceedings are conducted, it must hear the affected parties before taking a decision adverse to them. The court held that this opportunity of hearing is mandatory and cannot be left to the authority's discretion.
The court then examined Regulations 8, 9 and 10 of the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General) Regulations, 2020, which deal with the presentation, scrutiny and numbering of complaints.
The court held that the scrutiny contemplated by these regulations concerns procedural requirements relating to filing the complaint and the documents that have to accompany it. Consideration of the merits of the dispute is not contemplated at this stage.
Regulation 9(3) provides that if a complaint is found to be defective or not in conformity with the Act, Rules or Regulations, it can be returned for compliance. The complainant is given 15 days, or such other time as the authority considers appropriate, to cure the defect and resubmit the complaint.
The court explained that Kerala RERA can check whether a complaint satisfies the requirements under the applicable rules and regulations and whether the mandatory documents have been filed. It cannot go beyond this and decide the merits of the dispute while considering the complaint for numbering.
It observed, “Nothing beyond the same can be insisted upon, at the time of numbering and a decision of question of merits of the matter cannot also be considered at that point of time.”
The court further held that if a filing defect is found, the complaint must be returned after notifying the complainant of the deficiency. The complainant must then be given an opportunity to cure the defect and resubmit the complaint.
Such a defect cannot include a finding or adjudication touching upon the merits of the matter.
The court held that the two Kerala RERA orders had been passed without jurisdiction and without fulfilling the authority's statutory obligations under the Act. It quashed both orders and directed Kerala RERA to number the complaints and consider the petitioners' grievances on merits after hearing them
For Petitioners (Renney Geo Varghese and Sindhu M. Poduval): Advocate Naseer Moidu.