Real estate regulatory proceedings are not void for composition defects, and recovery provisions must secure effective refund enforcement.

Proceedings under the real estate regulatory framework are not invalidated merely because the Authority acts with a vacancy, defect in constitution, or irregularity in appointment, especially where the statutory scheme permits functioning and no timely objection was raised. A challenge to the merits of a refund and interest order was treated as a matter for appeal, so writ interference was declined on the basis of alternative remedy. The recovery provisions were construed purposively to support effective enforcement of refund directions, avoiding a fragmented execution process that would frustrate speedy consumer relief. The document also notes that the challenge to the vires of the regulation was left open for future consideration if invoked.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order passed by a single Member of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority was invalid for want of proper composition of the Authority; (ii) Whether the challenge to the merits of the refund and interest order, and the mode of execution for recovery of the amount, could be entertained in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether an order passed by a single Member of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority was invalid for want of proper composition of the Authority.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was read as a whole. While the Authority under the Act is composed of a Chairperson and Members, the provisions governing meetings and decision-making permit functioning in the absence of the Chairperson, and the saving clause protects proceedings from being invalidated merely because of vacancy, defect in constitution, or irregularity in appointment. The conduct of the petitioner in not objecting before the Authority was also treated as relevant. The objection based only on composition, therefore, could not defeat the proceedings.

Conclusion: The objection to the single-Member order was rejected and the order was held not invalid on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the merits of the refund and interest order, and the mode of execution for recovery of the amount, could be entertained in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The challenge to the rate of interest was treated as a merits-based grievance for which an appeal was available, so writ interference was declined on the ground of alternative remedy. On execution, the recovery provisions were construed purposively to further the object of the Act, namely speedy and effective redressal for allottees. A narrow reading that would force the allottee to split recovery of principal and interest into different forums was rejected. The recovery mechanism was held to encompass enforcement of the refund direction so as to avoid frustrating the statute's consumer-protective object.

Conclusion: The writ court declined to interfere on the merits challenge, and upheld the recovery mechanism adopted for enforcement of the refund order.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on the principal issues decided, while the challenge to the vires of the regulation was left open for future consideration if and when it is actually invoked.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory proceeding under the real estate regulatory regime is not invalidated merely because of a vacancy or defect in constitution, and enforcement provisions must be construed purposively to secure speedy consumer relief without defeating the legislative object.

---