Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
On Thursday the supreme court declared that the court will not entertain proceedings under article 32 of the Indian constitution made by a purchaser seeking relief of a real estate project.
A bench comprising Justices M.R.Shah and DY Chandrachud considered a writ petition filed by one of the home buyers of a real estate project in Bulandshahr called: ‘Sushant Megapolis’.
the primary relief sought by the petitioner was (1) the cancellation of all the agreements; (ii) the reimbursement of money to the buyers; and in the alternative (iii) ensuring that the construction takes place and that the houses are handed over within a reasonable time. In contrast to the above reliefs, the petitioner has requested the establishment of a committee headed by one of the former Judges of the supreme court to monitor and manage the developer's projects in the present case. Also, the petitioner sought a forensic audit and investigation by the CBI and other bodies, such as the Office of Serious Fraud Investigation and the Directorate of Enforcement. Justice DY Chandrachud has remarked that: The real estate market has suffered a blow on account of the downturn of the economy and now the COVID pandemic. If we entertain the requests of homebuyers against builders/developers under Article 32, the flood-gates will open. The apex court will then become the 'Building Programs Court' From any part of the country, the supreme court will receive pleas. If this petition is considered under article 32. Entertaining a petition of this kind will entail the Court practically supervising a construction project on a day-to-day basis.
With respect to the petitioner's allegations of fraud, the bench iterated that, as far as the remedies of a criminal offense are concerned, there is no reason for the court to not entertain a petition under section 32 of the constitution as per the facts of this case. As there are remedies available in the Code of Criminal procedure 1973. The bench reflected that: There is a need to invoke the statutory procedures enunciated. In accordance with the law, adequate provisions have been made in the statute for dealing with the filing of a complaint and for investigation. It may be difficult for real estate projects across the country. The Court's intervention can not be limited to one or a few selected cases. Judicial time is a valuable resource that needs to be carefully guarded. We must always be mindful of the cost of opportunity involved in exercising our discretion to consider a petition and to intervene in terms of diversion of time and resources away from us.
86540
103860
630
114
59824