TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether personal or oral hearing was mandatory before revocation of registration under Section 7 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. (ii) Whether the power exercised under Section 7 was quasi-judicial and incapable of sub-delegation, so that the Secretary could not draft or communicate the order on behalf of the Authority.
Issue (i): Whether personal or oral hearing was mandatory before revocation of registration under Section 7 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 7 requires issuance of a show-cause notice and consideration of the promoter's reply within thirty days. The provision does not prescribe repeated notices or an oral hearing as a condition precedent. The record also reflected a personal hearing with the promoter, and the Court held that principles of natural justice do not require an oral hearing to be read into the section in the absence of statutory mandate.
Conclusion: Personal or oral hearing was not mandatory, and the challenge on this ground failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the power exercised under Section 7 was quasi-judicial and incapable of sub-delegation, so that the Secretary could not draft or communicate the order on behalf of the Authority.
Analysis: The Court held that Section 7 is triggered by the Authority's satisfaction on the basis of notice and reply, and the provision is intended to inform the Authority's mind before action is taken. On that construction, the power was treated as administrative rather than quasi-judicial. The Authority could authorise its Secretary to communicate the decision, and the drafting or communication of the order did not amount to an impermissible exercise of the deciding power by the Secretary. The factual material on record also supported revocation, including incomplete disclosure, stalled construction, and diversion of funds.
Conclusion: The power under Section 7 was administrative, sub-delegation in the manner complained of was not unlawful, and the revocation order was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all material grounds, and the revocation of registration and consequential directions were sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 7 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, revocation of registration is an administrative power that requires notice and consideration of reply, but does not mandate a personal hearing or prohibit authorised communication of the Authority's decision by the Secretary.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
