Equal legal representation in quasi-judicial proceedings: Rajasthan High Court read down a real estate provision to include respondents.

Section 56 of the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was found unconstitutional to the extent it allowed legal representation for the applicant or appellant but not for the respondent in proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal, Regulatory Authority or adjudicating officer. The Court held that quasi-judicial participation must be available on equal terms to both sides, and that the exclusion of the respondent created an unjustified distinction contrary to equality and fair hearing principles. The provision was therefore read down so the respondent may also appear in person or authorise the same categories of representatives, preserving the statutory scheme through constitutional interpretation.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 56 of the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was unconstitutional for conferring a right of legal representation on the applicant or appellant but not on the respondent, and whether the provision should be read down to include the respondent.

Analysis: Section 56, as enacted, permitted the applicant or appellant to appear in person or to authorise a chartered accountant, company secretary, cost accountant, legal practitioner or officer to represent the case before the Appellate Tribunal, Regulatory Authority or adjudicating officer. The Court found that the statutory scheme of the Act and the Rules of 2017 contemplated participation of both sides in quasi-judicial proceedings and that the denial of an equivalent right to the respondent created an unjustified distinction between similarly placed parties. The Court held that such exclusion offended equality and fair hearing principles and was inconsistent with the object of the Act and with the broader procedural framework reflected in the Rules.

Conclusion: Section 56 was held unconstitutional to the extent it excluded the respondent, and it was read down so that the respondent also may appear in person or authorise the same categories of representatives.

Final Conclusion: The statutory right of legal representation in proceedings under the Act was extended to both sides, thereby preserving the validity of the provision through reading down rather than striking it down.

Ratio Decidendi: A provision governing representation in quasi-judicial proceedings cannot validly confer a right on one contesting side while denying the same right to the opposite side without a rational basis; where possible, the provision should be read down to make it constitutionally valid.

---