Writ relief for a homebuyer may survive forum shopping objections where prior proceedings reflect desperation, not abuse.

A writ petition by a homebuyer against a State instrumentality may be entertained despite prior proceedings in other forums where those proceedings arise from desperation rather than calculated forum shopping. The statutory bar under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was not accepted to deny relief on the peculiar facts, and the respondent's failure to deliver possession for years, coupled with structural defects and an inadequate interim arrangement, was treated as unfair and unreasonable. The petitioner was held entitled to refund of the amounts paid with interest and compensation for mental agony.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of forum shopping and the statutory bar under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the amount paid along with interest and compensation for the prolonged non-delivery of the flat.

Analysis: The petitioner had paid the entire consideration for the flat and yet remained without possession for years, while the project suffered structural defects and the respondent, being an instrumentality of the State, failed to provide an effective rehabilitation. The mere fact that the petitioner had approached other forums did not, on these facts, warrant rejection of writ relief, because the multiple proceedings were treated as arising from desperation and helplessness rather than a calculated attempt to secure a favourable forum. The bar under Section 79 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 was not accepted as a ground to deny relief in the peculiar facts. The refusal to refund the principal with interest and the inadequacy of the temporary rental arrangement were found to be unfair, and the respondent was held to be bound to act reasonably and fairly in public law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and was allowed. The petitioner was held entitled to refund of the amounts paid with interest and to compensation for mental agony.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition by a homebuyer against a State instrumentality may be entertained notwithstanding prior recourse to other forums where the multiple proceedings arise from desperation and the public authority's conduct is unfair, arbitrary, and fails to provide an effective remedy.

---