Karnataka High Court Invokes Writ Jurisdiction In RERA Matter To Enable Consideration Of Developer's Objections

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the existence of an appellate remedy does not prevent it from exercising writ jurisdiction in a real estate dispute where due opportunity has not been afforded to one of the parties.

The court set aside a Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority order directing Embassy One Developers Pvt Ltd to pay over Rs. 4.24 crore as delay interest without considering its objections.

Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad said, “An alternative remedy need not always be a reason for this Court to refuse the exercise of the discretion and plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” The court added, “for complete adjudication with due opportunity, the Authorities must consider Statement of Objections filed.”

It further observed that if liability to pay interest is imposed, “it must be with a reasonable opportunity lest there be reason for multiplicity in the proceedings”

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by a homebuyer before the Authority. By its May 16, 2024 order, the Authority directed the developer to pay delay interest at SBI MCLR plus 2% from April 1, 2018 till handing over possession with occupancy certificate.

It recorded that although the developer appeared and was granted more than three months' time, it did not file objections or supporting documents. It held that there was delay and that the complainant was entitled to interest under Section 18 of the Act

Before the High Court, the developer said it had filed its statement of objections with a delay condonation application on March 4, 2024. The complainant opposed the petition. She argued that the developer should avail the statutory appeal under Section 43

The court noted that the statement of objections was on record before the impugned order was passed. It said it was “salient that the Statement of Objections were part of the proceedings much before the date of the impugned order.” It also observed that the Authority had not assessed the merits of the rival cases

The court quashed the order. It directed the developer to pay Rs. 3 lakh as costs and to appear before the Authority on February 9, 2026 for fresh proceedings.

For Petitioner: Advocate Smt. Maneesha Kongovi

For State: Additional Government Advocate Smt. Saritha Kulkarni

For RERA: Advocate Sri Gouthamdev C. Ullal

For Complainant: Advocate Smt. Karthika Nair for Sri Vamshi Krishna C