Statutory appeal and broad complaint jurisdiction under RERA bar writ interference where aggrieved persons invoke the Act.

Availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 weighed against writ interference, so the writ petition was held not maintainable and the petitioners were directed to pursue the appellate remedy. On jurisdiction, the Authority could entertain complaints even though the project was said to be unregistered and the complainants were alleged not to be allottees, because the Act permits an aggrieved person to complain, applies broad definitions of promoter and allottee, and empowers the Authority to issue directions in such disputes. The challenge based on lack of registration and locus therefore failed, and the impugned order was found free from jurisdictional error.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. (ii) Whether the Real Estate Regulatory Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaints because the project was not registered and the complainants were said not to be allottees.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provides an appeal against any direction, decision or order of the Authority. The availability of that appellate remedy weighs against writ interference, particularly where the challenge is to an order passed by the Authority in exercise of statutory powers. The Court also noted that if the appeal is delayed, the appellate forum may consider the limitation issue on an appropriate application.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioners were required to pursue the statutory appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the Real Estate Regulatory Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaints because the project was not registered and the complainants were said not to be allottees.

Analysis: The right of an aggrieved person to complain under the Act is not defeated merely because the promoter failed to obtain registration. Section 3 imposes obligations on the promoter and empowers the Authority to act in the interest of allottees, while Section 31 independently enables any aggrieved person to file a complaint for violation of the Act or the rules. The definitions of promoter and allottee were applied broadly, and the complainants were treated as falling within the statutory protection. The Court further held that the Authority's power to issue directions under Section 37 supported its jurisdiction over such disputes.

Conclusion: The Authority had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaints, and the challenge based on alleged absence of registration or locus of the complainants failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was not shown to suffer from jurisdictional error, the alternative appellate remedy remained available, and the writ challenge was therefore rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Jurisdiction under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to entertain a complaint by an aggrieved person is founded on the complaint mechanism and the broad statutory definitions of promoter and allottee, and is not negated by the promoter's failure to secure registration under Section 3.

---