Article 32 limits in real estate disputes bar judicial project management where statutory remedies already exist.

Article 32 was considered an inappropriate route for seeking cancellation of real estate agreements, refund of purchasers' money, completion of the project, constitution of a monitoring committee, forensic audit, and criminal investigation, because the reliefs would require the Court to supervise the day-to-day management of a private construction project. The Court noted that a comprehensive statutory framework already existed under consumer, real estate, insolvency, and criminal law, providing suitable forums and remedies. It also observed that the petition was not brought on behalf of a defined class of similarly placed buyers. Direct constitutional recourse was therefore declined, while the petitioner was left free to pursue remedies under the applicable statutes.

---

---

Issues: Whether a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was maintainable to seek cancellation of agreements in a real estate project, refund of purchasers' money, directions for completion of the project, constitution of a monitoring committee, forensic audit, and criminal investigation, when statutory remedies were available.

Analysis: The reliefs sought would require the Court to assume control over the management and execution of a construction project and to supervise its day-to-day functioning, which lies beyond the proper scope of Article 32 jurisdiction. The field is occupied by a statutory framework, including legislation governing consumer remedies, real estate regulation, insolvency, and criminal procedure, which provides appropriate forums and procedures for redress. The petition was also not one espousing the claims of a defined class of similarly placed buyers. In such circumstances, direct recourse to Article 32 was held to be inappropriate, though the petitioner was left free to pursue remedies under the applicable statutes.

Conclusion: The petition under Article 32 was not maintainable for the reliefs sought and was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 32 is not to be invoked to convert the Court into a supervisory authority for managing a private construction project where an adequate statutory remedial framework already exists.

---